Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/11229/2026 of MANGALAMMA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 24 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010512672026 NC: 2026:KHC:52842 CRL.P No. 11229 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11229 OF 2026 BETWEEN: 1. MANGALAMMA D/O LATE CHIKKANAYAKA AGED
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11229 OF 2026
BETWEEN:
1.
MANGALAMMA
D/O LATE CHIKKANAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS,
R/AT HOSAPURA VILLAGE,
T.N.PURA TALLUKU, MYSURU DISTRICT.
2.
ANANDA
S/O LATE CHIKKAYAKA
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
R/AT HOSAPURA VILLAGE,
T.N.PURA TALLUKU, MYSURU DISTRICT.
3.
VANI @ MINAKSHI,
D/O JAYASHANKARA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT HOSAPURA VILLAGE,
T N PURA TALUKU, MYSORE DISTRICT.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SWAMY H N, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY RESPRESENTATION
BY SSP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
T.NARASIPURA POLICE STATION,
T.NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT.
HC-KAR
2.
SMT JAYAMMA,
W/O LATE KEMAPANAIKA,
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
R/AT HOSAPURA VILLAGE,
T N PURA TALLUKU,
MYSURU DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI NAGHARISH G S, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING
THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH
THE PRECEDING ALSO PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR AND
CHARGE SHEET IN CC NO. 360/2026 PERTAINING TO
T.NARASIPURA
POLICE
STATION
FOR
THE
OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 115(2), 74, R/W 3(5) OF BNS
PENDING ON THE FILE THE HONBLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (SR.
DN) AND J.M.F.C. COURT, T.NARASIPURA.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.
2. Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent No.1-State.
3. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings in C.C. No.360/2026 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, T. Narasipura. The offences alleged are under Section
HC-KAR
115(2), 74 read with Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ('BNS').
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the complainant/second respondent is aged 75 years and bed ridden. Thus, the contention that there was a scuffle or altercation cannot be accepted. It is his further submission that the witnesses cited in the charge sheet are the witnesses from the neighboring village and their statement cannot be accepted.
5. It is also the contention that if the alleged head injury has taken place on the date of the alleged incident at 8 'O' clock in the morning, the victim could not have gone to the hospital at 03.55 p.m. in the afternoon.
6. Learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that there are eye witnesses to the incident. The complainant has gone to the hospital, she has taken treatment, wound certificate is produced and would certificate reflects the injuries. Thus, would contend that the petition has to be dismissed and there has to be a trial.
HC-KAR
7. The Court has considered the contentions raised at the Bar and perused the records.
8. Merely because the complainant is aged 75 years and bed ridden, one cannot jump to the conclusion that the alleged incident has not taken place. The contention is that complainant is the victim. The contention is the complainant was assaulted and she has gone to the hospital, to take treatment. If there is a delay in going to the hospital by few hours that cannot be the ground to quash the proceedings.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also submit that before the police the complainant has given a further statement that some of the allegations made in the complaint are incorrect. The Court is of the view that statement cannot be accepted at this stage, as there is a statement before the Magistrate wherein she has alleged that the incident has taken place. The disputed questions of facts raised by the petitioners in this petition cannot be considered in this petition.
HC-KAR
10. All the contentions are to be considered after the trial. Petition is dismissed.
11. It is made clear that observations made in this petition are only confined to the merits this the petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
12. All contentions kept open are to be adjudicated before the Trial Court.
13. Trial Court shall decide the matter on merits without being influenced by the dismissal of this petition.
(ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE) JUDGE
CHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16