IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10313 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

1. JAYANTH V GOWDA SON OF VIJAYA SATYA SAI AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 305, 9TH CROSS, MANDYA TOWN, MANDYA-571401 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PAVAN M.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE BY BILIKERE POLICE STATION MYSURU DISTRICT-570023 Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSCEUTOR, Location: HIGH COURT OF HIGH COURT BUILDING, KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001

2. JAYAPRAKASH D B AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS BILIKERE POLICE STATION HUNSUR TALUK, MYSURU, KARNATAKA.570023 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1 V/O/DT:18.08.2025, NOTICE TO R2 IS DEFERRED)

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS)

PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE FIR NO.37/2021 AND PROCEEDINGS IN SC.NO.193/2021, PENDING BEFORE THE LEARNED VIII ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT MYSURU, SITTING AT HUNSUR AGAINST THE PETITIONER, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 307, 353, 332 OF IPC, 1860.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

ORAL ORDER

This petitioner is filed by accused No.1 seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in S.C.No.193/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 307, 353, 332 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

2. The petitioner, who is arrayed as accused No.1, has been charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences on the allegation that while he was being escorted by the police in a vehicle during transit, he attempted to assault the complainant–police officer with a wooden stick. Despite repeated warnings issued by respondent No.2, the petitioner allegedly continued his aggressive conduct and attacked the complainant with the said stick. It is further alleged that under compelling circumstances, respondent No.2, who is the Investigating Officer, was constrained to open fire, resulting in a gunshot injury to the petitioner’s right knee.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in the petition, contends that the entire episode has been falsely projected by the police to justify the unlawful firing at the petitioner. It is submitted that in order to cover up the high-handed and excessive use of force by respondent No.2, a false complaint was subsequently lodged, culminating in registration of the present case and filing of the charge sheet. Referring to the wound certificate, learned counsel argues that the prosecution narrative is highly exaggerated and intended to portray the petitioner as the aggressor. He submits that the petitioner had extended full cooperation during the escort, and it was respondent No.2 who, without provocation, fired at the petitioner’s right knee, and thereafter, a concocted case was set up to shield the officer’s misconduct.

4. Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor submits that the petitioner is a rowdy-sheeter with a long criminal history, and that he is already facing trial in two separate murder cases. It is contended that, on the date of the alleged incident, the petitioner had turned violent and attempted to assault the police personnel, thereby compelling respondent No.2 to open fire purely as a measure of deterrence and self-protection. It is emphasized that there was no mala fide intent in the act of firing, and the same was necessitated in the discharge of official duty.

5. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced on both sides and perused the charge-sheet records. The principal contention urged by the petitioner is that even if the charge-sheet materials are accepted on their face value, the offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, is not made out. This contention, however, cannot be accepted at this stage.

6. To attract an offence under Section 307 IPC, what is required to be established is that the act was done with such intention or knowledg