CRL.P/4022/2020 of SRI.CHANDRASHEKARA NAIK Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 23 September 2026

ORAL ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent No.1/State and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/ complainant.

2. The prayer sought in this petition is to quash the FIR in Crime No.38/2020 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (JR.Dn.) & JMFC Court, Shringeri, Chikmagalur District, as per Annexures-A and B.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner brought to notice of this Court that the first complaint was filed on 08.06.2020 by the complainant making an allegation against the petitioner that on 07.06.2020 at

HC-KAR

05.00 p.m., came near the house of complainant and he enquired about her husband and since her husband was not in the house he threatened the complainant that he has already went to the jail and if her husband comes in the way of his sand business, he would take out his life and instructed her to inform her husband not to interfere in his sand business and caused the life threat and as such complaint was lodged before the police.

4. The police did not register the case of petitioner and gave N.C.No.136/2020. The complaint was given by the respondent No.2 on the very same day at 06.30 p.m. and this complaint is a counter blast as against the complaint given by the petitioner and that too, a false allegation made that in the absence of her husband, he trespassed the house and outraged her modesty and abused her husband in a filthy language and caused the threat. But the police have registered the case and fails to take note of the earlier complaint given by the petitioner.

HC-KAR

5. The learned counsel also vehemently contend that only with an oblique motive in order to avoid the earlier complaint, the present complaint is filed. The counsel also vehemently contend that complaint filed by the respondent No.2 is only to settle scores with the petitioner and in retaliation to take revenge for filing a complaint, that too making a false allegation of outraging of modesty. Hence, it requires interference.

6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/complainant would submit that there is a specific allegation in the complaint regarding outraging the modesty of a woman, that too trespassing the house of the complainant and ingredients of the offences are made out. The counsel appearing for the State would submit that based on the complaint case is registered and matter is under investigation. In view of granting of stay, trial could not be proceeded with in the matter and hence, an application is also filed to vacate the stay.

HC-KAR

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned HCGP for the respondent No.1/State and also the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.2/State, it appears that there was a reference of incident in the complaint of 08.06.2020 given by the petitioner that complainant came along with her husband on the previous day and caused the threat. N.C.No.136/2020 was registered on the previous day at 06.30, but present complaint was filed on the next day, wherein an allegation is made that the petitioner having trespassed the house and outraged the modesty, also abused and threatened.

8. As could be seen, there was an endorsement on the very complaint mentioning the date as '10.06.2020', but this complaint was received on the previous day i.e., on 09.06.2020 at 12.30 p.m. This complaint is counter blast against the complaint given by the petitioner's wife as per Annexure-C and Court has to take note of that

HC-KAR

earlier there was an incident and in the complaint also, the complainant has not mentioned the timings at what time this incident of trespass and also outraging of modesty. Even nothing discloses the timings except making the allegation that he came inside the compound and abused.

9. Having taken note of the complaint, as well as counter complaint and that too, there was a delay in filing present complaint, it is very clear that this complaint is an off-shoot of earlier complaint given by the wife of the petitioner dated 08.06.2020. But police have not registered the case, instead police registered this case having received the subsequent complaint and when such being the case, it is nothing but an abuse of process. As such, if this Court fails to entertain the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., it amounts to miscarriage of justice.

HC-KAR

10. Hence, for the reasons discussed above, I pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is allowed.

(ii) The proceedings initiated against the petitioner in FIR No.38/2020 on the file of Principal Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) & JMFC Court, Sringeri, Chikkamagaluru District, is hereby quashed.

Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE

DR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22