##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100885 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)

BETWEEN:

SOMANATH S. HIREMATH R/A SIDDANAKOLLA-587125, TQ: HUNAGUND, DIST: BAGALKOT.

… PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH HANUMSAGAR P.S REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROCECUTOR/HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BNENCH–580011, DHARWAD.

2. SMT. MANJUAL W/O. SOMANATH HIREMATH Digitally signed by C LA H X A M N A D N RASHEKAR R/A.NO.63 AND 64, 3RD MAIN, KATTIMANI Location: High 3RD CROSS, DARSHAN FARM, NEAR KEREKODE, C D o h u a r r t w o a f d K B a e r n n c a h ta , ka, Dharwad R.R.NAGAR, BENGALURU-- 560098.

… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1, SRI VIDYASHANKAR G. DALAWAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. PLEASED TO QUASH THE CHARGESHEET FILED BY THE HANUMASAGAR POLICE STATION, HANUMASAGAR AND TRIAL COURT PROCEEDINGS BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE IN CRIME NO.70/2021 FOR ALLEGED OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 R/W SECTION 34 OF INDIAN PANEL CODE, AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDING IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, COURT AT KUSTAGI IN C.C NO.415/2022.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

ORAL ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused No.1 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in C.C.No.415/2022 in connection with Crime No.70/2021 on the file of learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Kushtagi, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and

354 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’).

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case in nutshell is as under:

The petitioner/accused No.1 is a practicing Advocate at Bengaluru, came into contact with the defacto complainant. The petitioner was engaged by the defacto complainant in her divorce petition pending before the Family Court, Bengaluru. Thus, developed intimacy with each other and during the lockdown, the defacto complainant came to the village of the petitioner and opposed that she is wife of accused No.1. Therefore, the petitioner took quarrel with the defacto complainant, abused her in filthy language, intentionally insulted her, to provoke her breach of peace and assaulted her and also made criminal intimidations to eliminate her.

3. Based on the complaint lodged by the defacto complainant, the SHO registered the case and the Investigating Officer conducted the investigation and after completion of the investigation, he submitted charge sheet against accused No.1 by dropping accused No.2 and 3 from the charge sheet. Thus, the jurisdictional magistrate took cognizance of the offences and issued process against the petitioner. Taking exceptions to the same, the petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash the entire proceedings.

4. Heard Sri K.L.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Praveena Y.Devareddiyavara, learned HCGP and Sri Vidyashankar G.Dalawai, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

5. The learned for the petitioner vehemently contended that, the defacto complainant filed false case against the petitioner. There are serious omissions and contradictions in the testimony of CW1. In the complaint, she has made allegations against the accused, whereas in her further statement, she has completely deviated from the prosecution version. Hence, the order of taking cognizance and the issue of process against the petitioner deserves to be quashed and the ingredients of Sections 324 and 354 of IPC are not made out.

6. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent-State vehemently contended that the charge sheet material clearly discloses the commission of the aforesaid offences and the veracity of allegation ag