SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25565

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J
Hemanth Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
CRL.P No. 103862 of 2025



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ranjita Alagawadi, Y. Lakshmikant Reddy
For the Respondents: Dayanand Sangreshi, B. S. Sangati

Proceedings under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. will not be quashed for general factual disputes like delay or alibi which are triable; however, proceedings against an accused will be quashed if the allegations in the complaint and charge sheet are omnibus and lack specific overt acts.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Quashing of proceedings - Principles reiterated - Power under Section 482 can be exercised to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice, but cannot be invoked to appreciate evidence or evaluate defense arguments that are to be tested during trial.

(B) Quashing of proceedings - Omnibus allegations - Where allegations in FIR and charge sheet against one of the accused lacks specific overt acts and are omnibus in nature, the criminal proceedings against such accused are liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of process of law.

Facts of the case:
Petitioners filed a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash criminal proceedings for offences under Sections 498A, 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC based on a matrimonial dispute. Petitioners contended that the complaint was delayed and false, and that they resided elsewhere. The court considered the role attributed to each accused in the charge sheet.

Findings of Court:
While the specific allegations against accused Nos.1 and 2 were supported by charge sheet material and require trial, no overt acts were attributed to accused No.3. Consequently, proceedings against accused No.3 were quashed.

Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings against the accused should be quashed based on delay in the complaint and lack of specific overt acts.

Ratio Decidendi: Exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 is not meant for determining factual disputes or evaluating trial evidence, but where accusations in the charge sheet are purely omnibus against an accused without specific overt acts, it amounts to an abuse of the process for that specific individual.

Result: Petition allowed in part; proceedings quashed only against petitioner No.3.

Table of Content
1. overview of charges and nature of the criminal petition. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. arguments regarding delay, falsity of allegations, and prima facie case. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. application of section 482 criteria and assessment of specific roles against accused. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)

ORAL ORDER

1. This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.)/528 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), praying to quash the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, with the following prayer:

"PRAYER

WHEREFORE: the petitioner more respectfully prays that the Hon’ble court be pleased to allow this petition and to quash the entire proceedings in CC 1588/2024 (Crime no 0036/2024) Ballari Women P.S. passed in IV Addl Civil Judge And JMFC Court Ballari in for the offence punishable under section 498A, 323, 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, in so far as present petitioners are concerned / accused 1 to 3 pending on the file of PCJ and JMFC, Ballari, in the interest of Justice."

2. It is the brief case of prosecution as per the complaint, FIR and charge sheet materials that the complainant is the wife of petitioner/accused No.1 and petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.2 and 3 are in-laws of the complainant. The marriage of the complainant and petitioner No.1/accused No.1 was solemnized on 14.05.2023 and thereafter, the petitioners/accused started demanding to give salary and subjected to her ill-treatment. It is alleged that on 18.02.2024, a KPTCL exam was scheduled; therefore, on the previous day i.e., on 17.02.2024, the complainant had been to Bengaluru along with her mother and grandmother. Therein, petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.2 and 3 abused and assaulted her and the mother-in-law of the complainant held her hair and threw her out of the house and also assaulted the complainant’s mother. The husband assaulted with a flower pot and caused grievous injuries and also assaulted the grandmother of the complainant. Thereafter, they took treatment at the Government Hospital of K.R.Peth, Bengaluru, and thereafter returned to Ballari and lodged a complaint for the offences alleged.

3. Based on this complaint, the Police have conducted the investigation and filed a charge sheet against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 498A , 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (IPC).

4. The petitioners have filed this petition praying for quashing the proceedings initiated against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 by raising various grounds in the petition.

5. Heard the arguments from the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the materials available to this Court at this stage.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 submitted that the petition will not be pressed as against petitioner No.1/accused No.1 and in the same way, the petition insofar as petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is dismissed as withdrawn. Accordingly, the petition insofar as against petitioner No.1/accused No.1 dismissed as withdrawn.

7. Further submitted that the petition insofar as against petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.2 and 3, that as per the complaint averments, the alleged incident took place on 20.06.2023 to 18.03.2024, but the complaint was lodged on 15.03.2024; therefore, there is delay in lodging the complaint. Further, the wound certificate dated 21.05.2024, but the alleged incident took place on 17.02.2024; therefore, wound certificate is after a lapse of more than three months from the date of the alleged incident; therefore, this wound certificate cannot be believed.

8. Further submitted that as on the date of incident, petitioner Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.2 and 3 were regularly residing in Tirupati, but not in Bengaluru and as on the date of alleged incident, no such thing has happened

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top