IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11726 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

SMT. KAVITHA B, WIFE OF SRI HEMANTH KUMAR. M., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING NOW AT NO. 70, M. S. RAMAIAH ENCLAVE, II MAIN, HESARAGHATTA MAIN ROAD, BAGALGUNTE, BENGALURU-560 073, …PETITIONER (BY SRI. THEJASWINI G., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASAVESWARA NAGARA PS, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLICE PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU -01 Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J

2. SRI. NAGARAJU. P., KARISHETTY SON OF SRI. PAPANNA, Location: High Court of AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, Karnataka NOW RESIDING AT 276, 10^TH CROSS, 2^ND PHASE, 1^ST STAGE, MANJUTHANAGARA, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU 560 010.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.CHANNAPPA EARAPPA,HCGP FOR R1;

SRI.H RAJANNA., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS)

PRAYING TO QUASH THE ALLEGED FIR WHICH IS REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 BY ITS STATE PP, HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU, BASAVESHWARANAGAR P.S, NO.6487,8^TH MAIN ROAD, WEST OF CHORD ROAD, 1^ST STAGE, BASAVESHWARA NAGAR BENGALURU 560079 IN THEIR CR.NO.245/2025 FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 318(4),316(2),352,351(2),3(5) OF BNS 2023 WHICH IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE IV A.C.M.M BENGALURU.

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.245/2025, pending before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5)

of the BNS, 2023.

2. Heard Smt. Thejaswini G., learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Channappa Earappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri H. Rajanna, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

The petitioner is the accused, the second respondent, the complainant. It transpires that the petitioner is the wife of one Hemant Kumar M. The said Hemant Kumar M. and the complainant are said to be friends; transactions between Hemant Kumar and the complainant happen. The transaction leads to transfer of certain amount in the year 2021, into the account of the husband of the petitioner, to the tune of ₹17,00,000/-. It transpires that, the petitioner is alleged to have executed an ‘on demand promissory note’ and her husband Hemant Kumar M. has affixed signature as a witness on the said promissory note. On this premise, the complainant has instituted proceedings before the concerned Court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which is pending consideration and simultaneously, seeks to register a complaint, which becomes a crime in Crime No.245/2025 for the aforesaid offences. Registration of the crime is what has driven the petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.

4. Smt. Tejaswini G., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner – accused would vehemently contend that the transaction is not between the petitioner and respondent No.2 – complainant, it is between the husband of the petitioner and respondent No.2. The petitioner and her husband have marital discord today and therefore, the husband has not returned the money to the complainant and the petitioner - wife is now dragged into the web of these proceedings alleging offences punishable under Sections 318(4), 316(2), 352, 351(2), 3(5) of the BNS, 2023, which were Sections 420, 406, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC, the earlier regime. She would further contend that a crime cannot be registered for the purpose of recovery of money.

5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 submits that it is the petitioner - wife who gave a promissory note and her husband had signed as a witness. It is a clear case where the wife is also involved in the transaction and therefore, the crime is registered against the petitioner - wife. The matter is still at the stage of investi