Prashanth Reddy v. The State of Karnataka

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3260 OF 2024 BETWEEN:

¶1PRASHANTH REDDY S/O.T.KRISHNA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT VEERABHADRAPPA NILAYA, 4TH BLOCK, 3RD MAIN, HBR LAYOUT, BANGALORE.

¶2K.S.VENUGOPALA REDDY, S/O. SRINIVASA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS,

¶3BALA SUNDARA REDDY, S/O. SRINIVASA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, ALL ARE RESIDING AT VEERABHADRAPPA NILAYA, 4TH BLOCK, 3RD MAIN, HBR LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560 043.

¶4SRINIVAS. A S/O. LATE ANJINAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.253, CHELLIKERE, NEAR ANJENEYA SWAMY TEMPLE, KALYAN NAGAR POST,

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

BANGALORE-560 043.

¶5SHANKARA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT KACHARAKANAHALLI, ST. THOMAS TOWN POST, BANGALORE-560 084. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR M.H., ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE P.S.I., BANASAWADI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560 001. REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING.

¶2K.T.RAJ KUMAR, S/O. K.V.THIMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT "K.T.VENKATAPPA BUILDING", NEAR TRAFIQ POLICE STATION, OLD MADRAS ROAD, K.R. PURAM, BANGALORE-560 036. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.MAHESH P., HCGP)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND TO QUASH ALL THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.57062/2019 IN CR.NO.159/2015 P/U/S 143,341,323,324,325,427,506 R/W 149 OF IPC REGISTERED IN BANASWADI P.S. PENDING BEFORE THE 11TH ACMM MAYO HALL BENGALURU.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in CC No.57062/2019, arising out of Crime No.159/2015 dated 14.03.2015, filed by the Banaswadi Police Station, Bengaluru City, against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323, 324, 325, 427, 506 r/w 149 of IPC pending on the file of XI Addl.C.M.M., at Bengaluru.

¶2Brief facts of the case are that respondent No. 2 lodged a complaint on 14.03.2015 alleging that on 13.03.2015, he visited Hennur Banaswadi Cosmopolitan Club with his friend Ravichandra upon an invitation from one Harish. While exiting at 09:30 p.m., accused No. 1 (Prashanth Reddy) stopped him and introduced him to petitioner No.4 / accused No.4 (Srinivas), who confronted him and issued threats not to purchase a property at Horamavu. Accused No.1, along with

co-accused Venugopal Reddy and Balasundar Reddy, then assaulted the complainant. Later, at 11:30 p.m., when the complainant returned with acquaintances to retrieve his left-behind mobile phone, the accused re-assaulted them with hands and beer bottles, injuring them and damaging vehicle No. KA-03-EA-8480.

¶3Based on the complaint, Crime No. 159/2015 was registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 324, 427, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Respondent No. 1-Police investigated the matter and filed a charge sheet, whereupon the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offences. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred this petition.

¶4Learned counsel for the petitioners primarily contended that, it is stated in the complaint that petitioners are totally strangers and they have nothing to do with alleged incident and a false complaint has been filed lodged against them in connection with a property dispute and also contented that there is a delay in filing charge sheet in the case i.e., after lapse of four years. It is also contented that there are no

specific overt acts against the petitioners/accused. In such circumstances, he prays to allow the petition.

¶5Per contra, learned HCGP opposed the prayer on the ground and now the charge sheet has been filed and the statement of witnesses coupled with the medical wound certificate is clear that the incident was caused and respondent No.2 sustained injuries. In such circumstances he prays to dismiss the petition.

¶6I have given my anxious consideration on the submissions of the parties and also perused the entire materials available on record.

¶7As could be gathered from the complaint and charge sheet averments, immediately after the incident, respondent No.2 was admitted in the Columbia Hospital. The wound certificate dated 14.03.2015 depicts that he sustained injuries on the date of incident. In such circumstances, the incident cannot be denied by the petitioners. Moreover, the charge sheet materials clearly reveals that there are eye witnesses to the incident. The complaint averments as well as statements of

witnesses disclose necessary ingredients to constitute alleged offences against the petitioners.

¶8Quashing the criminal proceedings is called for only in a case where the complaint does not disclose any offence, or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. If the allegations set out in the complaint do not constitute offence of which cognizance has been taken by the Magistrate it is open for this Court to quash the same. It is not necessary that a meticulous analysis of case should be done before trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. If it appears on a reading of the complaint and consideration of the allegation therein, in the light of the statement made on oath that the ingredients of the offence are disclosed there would be no justification for this Court to interfere as held in the case of SAU. KAMAL SHIVAJI POKARNEKAR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS reported in 2019 (14) SCC 350.

¶9In the instant case, the charge sheet materials discloses a prima facie case against the petitioners for the offences which the petitioners are charge sheeted. In such circumstances, the same has to be tested in detailed trial.

Hence, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, suffice to hold that the proceedings cannot be quashed at this stage. Accordingly, the petition lacks merits and the same is dismissed.

SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

GPG List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8