The absence of essential elements for the alleged offences led the court to quash proceedings, affirming the protection against abuse of legal processes.

ORDER :

1. In this Petition, Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

a) Quash the First Information Report and Complaint in Crime No.36/2025 dated 17.05.2025 registered by Puttur Town Police Station for the offences punishable under section 132, 351, 352 and 3(5) of The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha ( BNS ) on the file of Prl. Senior Civil Judge and ACJM Court, Puttur, Dakshina Kannada and all the subsequent proceedings initiated in so far as Petitioner/ Accused No.1 is concerned as per Annexure-A & B and etc.

b) pass such other writ or directions or orders, as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned HCGP for Respondents and perused the material on record.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the second Respondent filed the instant complaint on 07.05.2025 against the Petitioner - Accused No.1 and one Narmesh Rai - Accused No.2 for alleged offences punishable under Sections 351 , 352, 505 and 506 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhitha, 2023. In pursuance of the same, an FIR in Crime No.36/2025 was registered against the Petitioner-Accused No.1 who is before this Court by way of the present Petition. In this context, it is pertinent to extract the complaint given by the Respondent No.2 as under:

4. Under identical circumstances, a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ramesh v. The State of Karnataka and Another , W.P. No. 100090/2024 disposed of on 04.03.2025 has observed as under:

1. The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.1190 of 2023 registered for offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of the IPC.

2. Heard Sri Prashant S Kadadevar, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.

3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: The 2^nd respondent, Police Inspector of Jamkhandi Town police station is the complainant. A complaint comes to be registered on 21-2-2023 alleging that the petitioner who was working as a home guard has raised his voice demanding certain documents from the hands of the complainant. Based upon such act of raising of voice, the complaint comes to be registered against the petitioner in crime No.24 of 2023 for the afore- quoted offences. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against the petitioner and the concerned Court registers it as C.C.No.1190 of 2023 for offences punishable under Sections 353 and 506 of the IPC. The registration of the criminal case is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in this subject petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Sri Prashant S Kadadevar would submit that except raising of the voice, there is no other allegation against the petitioner. The incident of raising of voice is blown out of proportion by the police is his submission.

5. The 2^nd respondent-complainant though served has remained unrepresented even today.

6. Learned High Court Government Pleader representing the State would however refute the submission of the petitioner contending that there are about 5 eyewitnesses to the incident and therefore, it is a matter of trial for the petitioner to come out clean.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The petitioner working as a home guard is a matter of record. The 2^nd respondent complainant working as a Head Constable in the Jamkhandi town police station at the relevant point in time, is also a matter of record. The entire issue has sprung from an incident that has happened on 21-2-2023 which becomes the