Karnataka High Court
Girish Gayakwad vs The State Of Karnataka on 7 May, 2026
Author: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
Bench: Hanchate Sanjeevkumar
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MAY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.105478 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. GIRISH GAYAKWAD S/O. ANANDRAO,
AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SIDHIKERI VILLAGE, GANGAVATI,
DIST. KOPPALA-583227.
2. AMARESH S/O. ANANDRAO GAYAKWAD,
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SIDHIKERI VILLAGE, GANGAVATI,
DIST. KOPPALA-583227.
3. FIROZRAO S/O. ANANDRAO GAYAKWAD,
AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SIDHIKERI VILLAGE, GANGAVATI,
DIST. KOPPALA-583227.
4. SHARABOJIRAO GAYAKWAD
S/O. NAGOJIRAO GAYAKWAD,
AGE. 51 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SIDHIKERI VILLAGE, GANGAVATI,
Digitally signed by DIST. KOPPALA-583227.
MALLIKARJUN
RUDRAYYA KALMATH
Location: High Court 5. MARTANDARAO S/O. SHIVAJIRAO GAYAKWAD,
of Karnataka, Dharwad AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
Bench.
R/O. SIDHIKERI VILLAGE, GANGAVATI,
DIST. KOPPALA-583227.
6. MEGHARAJ GAYAKWAD S/O. GIRISH GAYAKWAD,
AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. SIDHIKERI VILLAGE, GANGAVATI,
DIST. KOPPALA-583227.
7. SAGAR GAYAKWAD S/O. GIRISH GAYAKWAD,
AGE. 23 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
R/O. SIDHIKERI VILLAGE, GANGAVATI TALUK,
DIST. KOPPAL-583227.
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025
HC-KAR
8. RAGHAVENDRA GAYAKWAD
S/O. VENKOJIRAO GAYAKWAD,
AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURIST,
R/O. SIDHIKERI VILLAGE, GANGAVATI,
DIST. KOPPALA-583227.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. J.S. SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY ITS GANGAVATI POLICE STATION
AUTHORITIES GANGAVATI SUB-DIVISION,
KOPPALA DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD-580008.
2. YAMANURAPPA S/O. DURGAPPA CHAKAPUR,
AGE. 55 YEARS,
R/O. SIDHIKERI, GANGAVATI TALUK,
DIST. KOPPALA-583227.
3. RAVIKUMAR S/O. YAMANURAPPA CHIKAPUR,
AGE. 25 YEARS,
R/O. SIDHIKERI, GANGAVATI TALUK,
DIST. KOPPALA-583227.
4. RAVIKUMAR S/O. MALLESH NAYAK @ MALLAPPA NAYAK,
AGE. 30 YEARS,
R/O. SIDHIKERI, GANGAVATI TALUK,
DIST. KOPPALA-583227.
...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. ABHISHEK MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SANTOSH B.MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R4)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO ENTIRE CRIMINAL
PROCEEDINGS IN GANGAVATI RURAL P.S CRIME NO.245/2025 NOW
ON THE CHARGE SHEET BEING FILED NUMBERED AS SPL.SC/ST CASE
NO.17/2025 PENDING BEFORE THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, GANGAVATI, FILED FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTION 191(2), 115(2), 189(2), 351(2), 190, 352 OF BNS
ACT 2023 AND SECTION 3(1)(S), 3(1)(R), 3(2)(VA) OF THE SC/ST
PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT 1989, INITIATED AGAINST THESE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 8 AS PER CHARGE SHEET MAY
KINDLY BE QUASHED BY ALLOWING THIS CRIMINAL PETITION WITH
THE COST THROUGHOUT IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 30.04.2026 COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS
DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR
ORAL ORDER
This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/accused
Nos.1 to 8 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure
(Cr.P.C.)/528 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
(BNSS), praying to quash the entire criminal proceedings
levied against them, as per the prayer described in the
petition below:
“PRAYER
Therefore it is prayed that the entire criminal
proceedings in Gangavati Rural P.S. in Crime
No.245/2025 now on the charge sheet being filed
numbered as Spl. SC/ST Case No. 17/2025
pending before the Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Gangavati, filed for the offence punishable
under section 191(2), 115(2), 189(2), 351(2),
190, 352 of BNS Act 2023 and section 3(1)(s),
3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of the SCST prevention of
Atrocities Act, 1989, initiated against these
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 as per the charge
sheet may kindly be quashed by allowing this
criminal petition with the cost throughout in the
ends of justice and equity.”
-4-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. It is the brief case of prosecution as per the FIR,
complaint, charge sheet and annexed materials to the
charge sheet that there was formation of a cement road
sanctioned from Maremma Temple on Siddikeri road to
Anjaneya Temple and the tender was allotted to one
Ramamohan Rao. When the road was under formation, the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 objected to the formation of
the road on the ground that their land was encroached upon
and in this regard, the authorities of the Public Works
Department (for short ‘PWD’) have inspected the site.
3. When this being the fact, on 20.08.2025 at
10:30 a.m., when the formation of road was under process,
all the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 came to the spot and
started abusing the son of the complainant with reference
to caste and also in filthy language and assaulted the son of
the complainant with the help of iron rod and a blow was
given on the head of the son of the complainant; therefore,
the injured sustained injuries on the head and immediately
he was shifted to the hospital. The petitioners/accused
-5-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025
HC-KAR
Nos.1 to 8 also assaulted, criminally intimidated threatened
the life of the son of the complainant and his friends.
Hence, with these allegations, the complaint was lodged
and FIR was registered for the offences above stated.
4. Heard the arguments of both the learned
counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the
materials available at this stage produced before the Court.
5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 vehemently submitted that
the complaint lodged is abuse of process of the Court as a
false complaint was lodged at the behest of the contractor
making the complainant and his son as forefront of the
incident. It is submitted that the petitioners/accused Nos.1
to 8 are the owners of land bearing Sy.No.239/*, which is
adjacent to Gangavati-Siddikeri road towards the southern
side.
6. It is further submitted that in the village map,
the road is shown adjacent to the petitioners’ land, but
when this being the fact, the Town Municipal Council
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025
HC-KAR
authorities (for short, ‘TMC’) and the PWD authorities
formed the road by encroaching upon the land of the
petitioners through the contractor, which was being
opposed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8. In this
regard, an original suit is filed before the Court of Principal
Civil Judge and JMFC, Gangavati and also a writ petition was
filed before this Court and the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to
8 were obtained interim orders.
7. When this being the fact, the PWD authorities,
the contractor and authorities of TMC, Gangavati, attempted
to encroach upon the land of the petitioners for formation of
the road and at that moment, a false complaint was lodged
against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8. Therefore, it is
submitted that when it is the fundamental right of the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 to protect their property at
the behest of the complainant, a false complaint was filed
against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8. Hence, it is
submitted that it is nothing but abuse of process of the
-7-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025
HC-KAR
Court; therefore, prays to quash the proceedings as it is a
severe abuse of process of the Court.
8. Further submitted that the petitioners herein
have lodged a complaint against the accused in Crime
No.242/2025, who assaulted the petitioners/accused Nos.1
to 8 and committed the crime as against the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8; therefore, as a counterblast,
the complainant, his son and his friends conspired together
and lodged a false complaint in Crime No.245/2025. Hence,
it is submitted that the complaint lodged against the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 in Crime No.245/2025 is a
counterblast to the Crime No.242/2025 and is nothing but
abuse of process of the Court.
9. Further submitted that when the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 protested against the
formation of the road on their land by encroachment, at the
behest of the TMC authorities, PWD authorities and
contractor making the complainant the forefront, a false
complaint was against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8.
-8-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025
HC-KAR
Therefore, submitted that from the very charge sheet
materials and charge sheet, prima facie it is found to be
abuse of process of the Court. Hence, prays to quash the
proceedings.
10. During the course of arguments, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8
filed a memo with some documents. Therefore, prays to
quash the proceedings as it is found to be abuse of process
of the Court.
11. Further submitted that the Police have filed a ‘B’
final report in Crime No.242/2025 by which, the complaint
was initiated against the complainant and his son and his
friends. Though the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 have
made out sufficient case for prosecution against them, a
false ‘B’ final report was filed, which is under challenge
before the concerned Court of law. However, in this case,
though no offence was committed by the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8, on the basis of a false
complaint, a frivolous charge sheet has been filed by
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025
HC-KAR
conducting an unfair investigation. Hence, prays to quash
the proceedings in this case in Crime No.245/2025.
12. In support of the arguments learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8
places reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court
in the cases of STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS VS.
BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS1 (Bhajan Lal and Others
case) and PRADEEP KUMAR KESARWANI VS. STATE OF
UTTAR PRADESH AND ANOTHER2 (Pradeep Kumar
Kesarwani case).
13. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of respondent No.2 and learned HCGP appearing on
behalf of respondent No.1/State vehemently submitted that
the averments made in the complaint, FIR, charge sheet
and materials produced along with charge sheet clearly
show that there is a prima facie case made out as against
the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 that the
1
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
2
2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947
– 10 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025
HC-KAR
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 have committed the offences
alleged and hence, the proceedings cannot be quashed.
Further, it is submitted that filing of charge sheet itself
vindicates that the prosecution has a prima facie case for
trial. Hence, prays to dismiss the petition.
14. In support of the arguments, learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondents’ places reliance on
the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of
R.A.H. SIGURAN VS. SHANKARE GOWDA ALIAS
SHANKARA AND ANOTHER3.
15. Upon considering the prima facie materials of the
case, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 are stated to be
the owners of the land bearing Sy.No.239/* measuring 15
acres 04 guntas situated at Gangavati, Koppal district. It is
the case of petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 that they are the
owners in title and also in possession of the property. It is
the allegation of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 that the
TMC authorities, PWD authorities and the contractors have
3
(2017) 16 SCC 126
– 11 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025
HC-KAR
encroached upon the land of the petitioners/accused Nos.1
to 8 and were also attempting to encroach further land of
the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8; in that process, the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 have protested against the
said encroachment during formation of the road. Thus, in
this background, the alleged offences stated to have
occurred.
16. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 have
produced a copy of FIR in Crime No.242/2025, which is a
complaint given by petitioner No.2/accused No.2 in Crime
No.242/2025. In the complaint, it is stated that the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 are the owners and are in
possession of the land, but when an attempt was made to
encroach upon the property of the petitioners/accused
Nos.1 to 8, the accused named in Crime No.242/2025 came
to the spot and started forming the road by encroaching
upon the petitioners’ land; in that process, the accused
named in Crime No.242/2025 have abused and assaulted
– 12 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025
HC-KAR
and petitioner No.2 sustained injuries and was immediately
admitted to the hospital as he sustained injury on the head.
17. It is alleged in the complaint in Crime
No.242/2025 that the accused named in Crime
No.245/2025 have assaulted petitioner No.2 herein with an
iron rod on the head and therefore, he was suffering from
bleeding. Hence, petitioner No.2 lodged a complaint before
the Police on 22.08.2025 at 06:30 p.m., which is registered
as Crime No.242/2025. Hence, it is prima facie found that
petitioner No.2 had sustained injuries on the head;
therefore, he was admitted to the hospital and lodged a
complaint on 22.08.2025 at 06:30 p.m.
18. There is a delay about two days in lodging the
complaint in Crime No.242/2025 against the accused
named in this Crime No.245/2025 and the reason is that
the complainant was taking treatment in the hospital as he
had suffered injuries on the head; therefore, there was
some delay occurred in lodging the complaint, which is
found in the FIR in Crime No.242/2025.
– 13 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025
HC-KAR
19. In Crime No.242/2025, the son of the
complainant is also named as accused No.2 along with other
nine accused, whoever on the spot and are alleged to have
committed the crime against the petitioners/accused Nos.1
to 8.
20. Upon considering another Crime No.245/2025, it
is also stated that the occurrence of incident on 20.08.2025,
but the complaint lodged on 23.08.2025 at 04:00 p.m. The
delay mentioned in the FIR regarding lodging of the
complaint is that since they held a meeting with elders in
their community; therefore, the complaint was lodged
belatedly.
21. Upon considering these two registrations of
complaint/FIR, Crime No.242/2025 is registered at the
initial point of time by petitioner No.2 in which he has
stated that since he had suffered injuries and was in the
hospital, some delay occurred in lodging the complaint. The
learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 filed a memo of documents
– 14 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025
HC-KAR
along with photograph showing petitioner No.2 had
sustained injuries on the head and there was bleeding. This
photograph of petitioner No.2 is not disputed by the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 as well as
learned HCGP. There was also a photograph of JCB machine
produced showing digging of the land, which is just adjacent
to the house of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8. Hence,
upon considering the genesis of occurrence of the incident
and registration of FIR in Crime No.242/2025 and in Crime
No.245/2025, both are to be considered in the background
of formation of the road.
22. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 submitted that the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 have filed a suit in
O.S.No.193/2025 before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC,
Gangavati, and also a writ petition in W.P.No.104283/2025
filed before this Court and there is an interim order that
there shall be no activities on the land bearing
Sy.No.239/*/*. The filing of the suit and the writ petition
– 15 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025
HC-KAR
above stated are not disputed by the prosecution and
respondent No.2.
23. Upon considering these two crime numbers of
Crime No.242/2025 and Crime No.245/2025, the genesis of
occurrence and registration of both crimes are one and the
same with regard to formation of the road. The
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 have stated that the road
was formed on the land of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to
8 and therefore, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 have
their genuine right to protest the action of the authorities to
form the road by encroaching land of the petitioners and
have every right to protect their land. The accused named
in Crime No.242/2025 in which the son of the complainant
is also one among the accused as accused No.2 and other
accused were present on the spot. The prosecution has not
produced any material as to why all these accused named in
Crime No.242/2025 were there on the spot. Their presence
on the spot is found to be with ulterior motive. Whereas,
the presence of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 is quite
– 16 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025
HC-KAR
natural and genuine, as when there is an allegation of
encroachment of land, they were present and protested
against the formation of the road by encroaching upon the
land of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8. Whereas, the
presence of the accused in Crime No.242/2025 is found to
be with ill-intentional, being unnatural; but the fact remains
that petitioner No.2 was admitted to the hospital having
sustained a bleeding injury on the head; therefore, there
was some altercation on the spot and in that regard,
petitioner No.2 had sustained injuries.
24. Hence, upon making an analysis of these two
registrations of Crime No.242/2025 and Crime
No.245/2025, the accused named in Crime No.242/2025
are found to be aggressors having crossed their limit.
Whether the accused named in Crime No.242/2025 are
labourers under the contractor for formation of the road or
whether they are employees either under the TMC,
Gangavati or under the PWD authorities is not found in the
charge sheet materials as produced by the Police in Crime
– 17 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025
HC-KAR
No.245/2025. Therefore, it is revealed from the charge
sheet that they are brought to the spot deliberately to push
over the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 to dilute the
rigorousness of the protection being made by the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 while protecting their
property. In this regard, investigation conducted in Crime
No.245/2025 is found to be a deliberate and
stage-managed investigation and is found to be an unfair
investigation.
25. Here, at this stage, it is to be reminded that the
submissions made by the counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 that upon the complaint
lodged and crime registered in Crime No.242/2025 lodged
by petitioner No.2 herein, the Police have filed a ‘B’ final
report. Whereas, in Crime No.245/2025 (the present case),
the Police have filed a charge sheet. Hence, upon
considering the genesis of these two crimes, lodging of
complaint and registration of Crime No.245/2025 is found to
be a deliberate attempt and lodging a false complaint
– 18 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025
HC-KAR
against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 is found to be
abuse of process of the Court.
26. Further, the learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 filed a memo along
with documents such as, order of the Assistant Director of
Land Records dated 19.02.2026 that the Phodi work
conducted on 12.12.2025 was cancelled and an order was
passed for re-survey and produced a sketch, which is
adjacent to the land of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8.
It is stated that the land of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to
8 is encroached for formation of the road. Further, the
photographs produced show that petitioner No.2 had
sustained injury on the head, with bleeding from the head
and also produced photograph that a JCB machine is on the
spot for formation of the road. Hence, the investigation
conducted and charge sheet filed is at the convenience of
the contractor, who had been allotted the tender work of
formation of road. Therefore, upon considering and
analyzing the events as found out from the materials on
– 19 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025
HC-KAR
records, the initiation of crime upon the complaint lodged,
registration of Crime No.245/2025 culminating into filing of
the charge sheet in this crime is found to be abuse of
process of the Court.
27. The principle of law summarized to invoke
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA
AND OTHERS VS. BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS4, at
Paragraph No.102, which reads thus:
“102. In the backdrop of the
interpretation of the various relevant provisions of
the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of
law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power
under Article 226 of the inherent powers under
Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted
and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein
such power could be exercised either to prevent
abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice, though it may not be
possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or
rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of4
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
– 20 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025HC-KAR
myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be
exercised.
a. Where the allegations made in the first
information report or the complaint, even if
they are taken at their face value and
accepted in their entirety do not prima
facie constitute any offence or make out a
case against the accused.
b. Where the allegations in the first
information report and other materials, if
any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose
a cognizable offence, justifying an
investigation by police officers under
Section 156(1) of the Code except under
an order of a Magistrate within the purview
of Section 155(2) of the Code.
c. Where the uncontroverted allegations made
in the FIR or complaint and the evidence
collected in support of the same don not
disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
d. Where, the allegations in the FIR do not
constitute a cognizable offence but
constitute only a non-cognizable offence,
no investigation is permitted by a police
officer without an order of a Magistrate as
contemplated under Section 155(2) of the
Code.
e. Where the allegations made in the FIR or
complaint are so absurd and inherently
improbable on the basis of which no
prudent person can ever reach a just
conclusion that there is sufficient ground
for proceeding against the accused.
f. Where there is an express legal bar
engrafted in any of the provisions of the
– 21 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025HC-KAR
Code or the concerned Act (under which a
criminal proceeding is instituted) to the
institution and continuance of the
proceedings and/or where there is a
specific provision in the Code or the
concerned Act, proving efficacious redress
for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
g. Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly
attended with male fide and/or where the
proceeding is maliciously instituted with an
ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on
the accused and with a view to spite him
due to private and personal grudge.”
28. Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case
of PRADEEP KUMAR KESARWANI (supra) has laid down
four steps to conduct whether initiation of criminal
proceedings is genuine or not and following are the steps to
be considered as per the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court at Paragraph No.20 as follows:
“20. The following steps should ordinarily
determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing,
raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in
the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-
(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon
by the accused is sound, reasonable, and
indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling
and impeccable quality?
(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon
by the accused, would rule out the
assertions contained in the charges
levelled against the accused, i.e., the
– 22 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025
HC-KAR
material is sufficient to reject and overrule
the factual assertions contained in the
complaint, i.e., the material is such, as
would persuade a reasonable person to
dismiss and condemn the factual basis of
the accusations as false.
(iii) Step three, whether the material relied
upon by the accused, has not been refuted
by the prosecution/complainant; and/or
the material is such, that it cannot be
justifiably refuted by the
prosecution/complainant?
(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the
trial would result in an abuse of process of
the court, and would not serve the ends of
justice?
If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative,
judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade
it to quash such criminal proceedings, in exercise of
power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the
accused, would save precious court time, which
would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as
well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially
when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in
the conviction of the accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar v.
Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of
2013)]”
29. Therefore, upon applying the principle of law laid
down and the guidelines as discussed above and
considering the genesis of occurrence of incident, it is
because of formation of the road. The petitioners/accused
Nos.1 to 8 have alleged that their land was encroached for
– 23 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025
HC-KAR
formation of the road and they were on the spot and
attempted to protect their property and in this regard, an
original suit and writ petition are filed and in the writ
petition, an interim order was granted.
30. When this being the fact, this Court in the writ
petition has passed an interim order not to form the road on
the land bearing Sy.No.239/*, then it is upon the
authorities to verify and check whether formation of road is
on the land bearing Sy.No.239/* or outside the said land,
but without verifying this fact, though there is an interim
order, they tried to form the road on the land of the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8. Hence, in this regard, the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 cannot be found to be
aggressors, but the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 are
found to be defenders of their property. Whereas, the
accused named in Crime No.242/2025 are found to be
aggressors and their presence being a deliberate attempt to
commit the crime.
– 24 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025
HC-KAR
31. The complaint lodged by petitioner No.2 in Crime
No.242/2025 is found to be genuine one having explained
the delay in lodging the complaint because petitioner No.2
was in hospital for treatment. Whereas, there is no such
explanation in registration of Crime No.245/2025 as
explanation is that there was talk in their community and
after taking advice of the elders, a complaint was lodged.
Hence, the complaint lodged in Crime No.245/2025 is found
to be afterthought and a deliberate attempt as the
complaint lodged is a counterblast to Crime No.242/2025.
Thus, the investigation in Crime No.245/2025 is found to be
an unfair investigation and does not reveal the truth
involved in the case; hence, the registration of crime in
Crime No.245/2025 and the resultant filing of charge sheet
is found to be nothing but abuse of process of the Court.
32. Therefore, the above discussed reasonings are
found to be amenable for quashing the proceedings as the
test is made as per the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of PRADEEP KUMAR
– 25 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025
HC-KAR
KESARWANI (supra). Hence, the entire process is found to
be abuse of process of the Court initiated against the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8. Thus, the petition is liable to
be allowed by quashing the proceedings.
33. In the result, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The criminal proceedings initiated against
the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 8 in
Gangavati Rural Police Station in Crime
No.245/2025 now on the charge sheet being
filed and numbered as Spl.SC/ST case
No.17/2025 pending before the Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Gangavati, filed
for the offence punishable under Sections
191(2), 115(2), 189(2), 351(2), 190, 352 of
Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita Act, 2023 and
Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of the
– 26 –
NC: 2026:KHC-D:6503
CRL.P No. 105478 of 2025HC-KAR
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, are
hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR)
JUDGESRA
CT: UMD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
[ad_1]
Source link
