Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 25930
THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.Nagaprasanna, J
Vijay @ Vijay Reddy N V – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11170 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Raja R.
For the Respondents: Channappa Earappa, Vikram Phadke
Criminal proceedings, especially those supported by evidence like charge sheets and dashcam footage, should not be quashed if a prima facie case is established; mere delay in filing an FIR is not fatal if the reasons for such delay are explained.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 341, 504, 506 read with 34 - Quashing of proceedings - Wrongful restraint and criminal intimidation - Allegations of blocking the complainant's vehicle, hurling abuses, and threats were supported by dashcam footage and material on record. (Paras 9, 10)
(B) Criminal Procedure - Delay in FIR registration - Mere delay is not per se fatal to the prosecution's case if the reasons for the delay are explained and supported by circumstances. (Para 11)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners allegedly overtook the complainant’s vehicle, engaged in a squabble, damaged the complainant's car, and wrongfully restrained the complainant. A complaint was filed seven days after the incident, leading to criminal proceedings. The petitioners sought to quash the charge sheet, citing delay and lack of merit in the allegations.
Findings of Court:
The Court found that the charge sheet and the complaint provided sufficient material to establish a prima facie case for the invoked offences. The delay in filing the FIR was found adequately explained in the complaint, and the Court declined to interfere at the preliminary stage, directing the petitioners to face trial.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceedings should be quashed due to an alleged seven-day delay in lodging the FIR and whether the material on record sufficed to support the offences charged.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that when a complaint provides specific details and explains the reasons for a delay in reporting, such delay is not fatal to the prosecution. Furthermore, where allegations establish elements of offences such as wrongful restraint, the court should not stifle a trial, and the accused must demonstrate their innocence through evidence during the proceedings.
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the petition filed for quashing criminal proceedings based on alleged offences. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. summary of rival contentions regarding merit of charges and impact of delay in fir filing. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. court's analysis of prima facie evidence for the offence of wrongful restraint. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's ruling on the impact of fir delay and final dismissal of the petition. (Para 11 , 12) |
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.66369/2024 REGISTERED BY MARATHAHALLI POLICE STATION PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XXIX ADDL.CJM, COURT (29TH ACMM) MAYOHALL BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 341, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.66369/2024 registered for offences punishable under Sections 341, 504, 506 read with 34 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri. Raja R., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. Channappa Earappa, learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. Vikram Phadke, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:
The petitioners are said to have overtaken the complainant’s car and tried to dodge the complainant after overtaking. A squabble thus began between the two. The squabble resulted in certain damage to the car of the complainant by these petitioners. The petitioners register a complaint before the jurisdictional police, which becomes a crime in Crime No.293/2024 for the afore-quoted offences. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet against these petitioners. The filing of the charge sheet is what has driven these petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the complaint so registered against these petitioners is malafide and therefore, the complaint and further proceedings thereon should be quashed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would however take this Court through the charge sheet material to demonstrate that the complaint was in detail; everything is captured in the dashboard camera, which was affixed to the complainant’s car and therefore, there is abundant material to proceed against these petitioners for the aforesaid offences. Learned counsel submits that the charge sheet is filed and it is a matter of trial for the petitioners to come out clean thereon.
6. Learned HCGP would also toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 in seeking dismissal of the petition.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would join issue in contending that the incident happened on 09.06.2024 and the complaint is registered only on 16.06.2024, which is 7 days after the incident and therefore, the delay in registering the crime is fatal.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts and link in the chain of events are all a matter of record. On the afternoon of 09.06.2024, the car belonging to the accused overtook the complainant’s car in a rage. The rage did not stop there since the road was filled with potholes and the complainant was driving his car slowly and at the time, a Swift car again seeks to overtake from the right side and stops the complainant's car. While overtaking the complainant's car, the Swift car crashed into an oncoming scooter. The petitioners blamed the complainant for crashing into the scooter, and a squabble broke out between the petitioners and the complainant. The complainant registers the crime in Crime No.293/2024 on the said incident though after 7 days delay. The complaint is lucid and vivid. It reads as
