Karnataka High Court
Smt Preeti Maneesh vs State Of Karnataka on 3 February, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:6397
CRL.P No. 13000 of 2023
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13000 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PREETI MANEESH
W/O MANEESH PUTTUR
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
R/AT NO 60, KAVYA 7TH MAIN
4TH CROSS, AKSHAYNAGAR EAST
YELACHENAHALLI, VTC BENGALURU
BENGALURU SOUTH
BEGUR, BENGALURU - 560 068.
2. MANEESH PUTTUR
S/O P.R ACHARYA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
R/AT NO.60, KAVYA 7TH MAIN
4TH CROSS, AKSHYA NAGAR
Digitally signed by
SANJEEVINI J YELACHENAHLLI, BENGALURU SOUTH
KARISHETTY BENGALURU - 560 068.
Location: High
Court of Karnataka
3. SMT. NANDA MALAVADE
W/O LATE MANJUNATH
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
R/AT NO.202, ASHOKA VIEW
BHAVANI NAGAR HUBLI
DHARWAD - 580 023.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. DIVYA R. B., ADVOCATE)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:6397
CRL.P No. 13000 of 2023
HC-KAR
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY HULIMAVU P. S.,
BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SMT. MONICA ARORA
W/O ASHOK KUAMR ARORA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R/AT NO.5A, 4TH CROSS
9TH MAIN, YELACHENAHALLI
AKSHYANAGAR EAST
BENGALURU - 560 068.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI A.R.CHANDRASHEKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.341/2023 REGISTERED BY THE
HULIMAVU POLICE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 341, 342, 323,
504 R/W 34 OF IPC AND THE CASE IS NOW PENDING BEFOER
HON'BLE 5TH A.C.M.M BENGALURU PRODUCED HERE WITH AS
ANNEXURE-A.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC:6397
CRL.P No. 13000 of 2023
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners - accused Nos.1 to 3 are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.341/2023, pending before the 5th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences under Sections 341, 342, 323, 504 r/w. 34 of the IPC.
2. Heard Smt. Divya R.B., learned counsel for petitioners, Sri K. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri A.R.Chandrashekar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.2, the complainant. The complainant and the accused were in the same Institution 'Learning Space Education Trust'.
Respondent No.2 - complainant, owing to certain allegations or otherwise is said to have been removed from the trust. The alleged acts of removal from service, becomes a crime in Crime No.341/2023, registered before the police on 02.09.2020, for the afore-quoted offences.
-4-NC: 2026:KHC:6397 CRL.P No. 13000 of 2023 HC-KAR
4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that none of the ingredients that are necessary for the offences so alleged are found in the case at hand, and if there was any abuse or wrongful restraint, the complainant would not have taken four months to register the crime.
5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that the complainant was indeed locked in a room, while she was not permitted to move around in any direction. Therefore, the investigation in the case at hand must be permitted to continue.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.
7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The entire issue now gets triggered from the registration of the complaint.
The complaint reads as follows:
"To, The Sub Inspector, Hulimavu Police station Bengaluru - 560 076 -5- NC: 2026:KHC:6397 CRL.P No. 13000 of 2023 HC-KAR Subject: FIR for wrongful confinement abusing, abutting and physical assault Myself Dr. Monica Arora M.Pharm, Ph.D, HOD, Dept of pharmaceutical chemistry Al-Ameen College of Pharmacy, Lal Bagh West gate, Bangalore and co-partner at Little Elly Pre-school Begur, Karuna Dham 454, Opp. to SNN Raj Serenity off Bannerghatta Road, Nobal residency, phase 2, Begur, Bengaluru 6. I would like to submit FIR against Miss Preeti Maneesh, Maneesh Puttur And Nanda Malvade for Wrongly confining, abusing, abutting and physical assault on me on 8th May 2023, timing 9 AM at the Little Elly Pre School premises. I visited school premise like my every day schedule. I found Miss Preeti maneesh who is also centre head for the school she was waiting with her mother- Nanda Malvade and her husband (Maneesh Puttur) both of them are no where related to school functioning process. I was forcibly asked to sit in the school and have a discussion without any prior notification, when I shared I will not be able to attend the meeting as I was not informed prior and was having work commitment also listening to this they got furious and locked me inside the school premises by Maneesh Puttur, Preeti Maneesh, I tried to get out of the school, they were consistently abusing and assaulting me, I tried to run away also but as gate were closed and they never allowed me to come near the gate, I was trembling with fear and was acquaintance (Anil Dawanehya) reached school to help and get me out of the school, He was also abused by them.
This whole incident is so unfortunate and shook me that I am not able to function properly as I am fearful of my life and I have danger from them.
Please take strict again against them and please file the FIR against them and do the needful, as early as possible.
Address Yours truly
Dr Monica Arora Dr Monica Arora
5A, 4th cross 9th main D/O Ashik Kumar Age -
43 Year
-6-
NC: 2026:KHC:6397
CRL.P No. 13000 of 2023
HC-KAR
Akshay nagar east Akshaynagar Yellenhalli
Yellenhalli Bengaluru
Bangalore - 560068 Ph Number 9591600220
9899654481 Caste - Hindu - Punjabi
(Arora)."
(Emphasis added)
The complaint narrates that on 08.05.2023 at 09.00 a.m., the incident has happened, but the complaint is registered on 02.09.2023, close to four months after the incident. It is the case of the complainant that she was not permitted to move in any direction and it amounted to wrongful restraint as obtaining under Section 341 of the IPC. Section 341 of the IPC has its ingredients under Section 339 of the IPC. Section 339 of the IPC, reads as follows:
"339. Wrongful restraint.--Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
Exception.--The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section."
Section 339 of the IPC mandates that the victim must not be permitted to move in any direction by use of force by the accused. That is not the issue in the case at hand. It is alleged -7- NC: 2026:KHC:6397 CRL.P No. 13000 of 2023 HC-KAR that the complainant was wrongly confined, abused and physically assaulted. If that being so, it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KEKI HORMUSJI GHARDA v. MEHERVAN RUSTOM IRANI1 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:
"11. It is in the aforementioned backdrop of events, the statement made by the first respondent that Accused 1 to 5 were managing the affairs of the Company and had instigated Accused 6 to construct the road must be viewed. It is one thing to say that the Company had asked Accused 6 to make construction but only because Accused 1 to 5 were its Directors, the same, in our opinion, would not be sufficient to fasten any criminal liability on them for commission of an offence under Section 341 IPC or otherwise.
12. "Wrongful restraint" has been defined under Section 339 IPC in the following words:
"339. Wrongful restraint.--Whoever voluntarily obstructs any person so as to prevent that person from proceeding in any direction in which that person has a right to proceed, is said wrongfully to restrain that person.
Exception.--The obstruction of a private way over land or water which a person in good faith believes himself to have a lawful right to obstruct, is not an offence within the meaning of this section."
The essential ingredients of the aforementioned provision are:
(1) Accused obstructs voluntarily; (2) The victim is prevented from proceeding in any direction;1
(2009) 6 SCC 475 -8- NC: 2026:KHC:6397 CRL.P No. 13000 of 2023 HC-KAR (3) Such victim has every right to proceed in that direction.
13. Section 341 IPC provides that:
"341. Punishment for wrongful restraint.--Whoever wrongfully restrains any person, shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month, or with fine which may extend to five hundred rupees, or with both."
14. The word "voluntary" is significant. It connotes that obstruction should be direct. The obstructions must be a restriction on the normal movement of a person. It should be a physical one. They should have common intention to cause obstruction.
15. The appellants herein were not at the site. They did not carry out any work. No overt act or physical obstruction on their part has been attributed. Only because legal proceedings were pending between the Company and Bombay Municipal Corporation and/or with the first respondent herein, the same would not by itself mean that the appellants were in any way concerned with commission of a criminal offence of causing obstructions to the first respondent and his parents.
16. We have noticed hereinbefore that despite of the said road being under construction, the first respondent went to the police station thrice. He, therefore, was not obstructed from going to the police station. In fact, a firm action had been taken by the authorities. The workers were asked not to do any work on the road. We, therefore, fail to appreciate that how, in a situation of this nature, the Managing Director and the Directors of the Company as also the Architect can be said to have committed an offence under Section 341 IPC.
...... ...... ......
19. Even as regards the availability of the remedy of filing an application for discharge, the same would not mean that although the -9- NC: 2026:KHC:6397 CRL.P No. 13000 of 2023 HC-KAR allegations made in the complaint petition even if given face value and taken to be correct in its entirety, do not disclose an offence or it is found to be otherwise an abuse of the process of the court, still the High Court would refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
20. Indisputably, there might have been some delay on the part of the appellants in approaching the High Court but while adjusting equity the High Court was required to take into consideration the fact that in a case of this nature the appellants would face harassment although the allegations contained in the complaint petition even assuming to be correct were trivial in nature. The High Court furthermore has failed to take into consideration the fact that in the first information report no allegation in regard to acts of common intention or common object on the part of the appellants was made out. The appellants were not named as accused therein. It is, therefore, really difficult to appreciate as to on what basis the complaint petition was filed.
21. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment and order of the High Court is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The order summoning the appellant is quashed."
(Emphasis supplied) In the afore-quoted judgment, the Apex Court holds that for an offence punishable under Section 341 of the IPC, the essential ingredients under Section 339 of the IPC which have to be necessarily met are that, the accused must obstruct voluntarily, the victim must be prevented from proceeding in any direction and such victim must have every right to proceed in that direction, all of which are absent in the case at hand.
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6397 CRL.P No. 13000 of 2023 HC-KAR Therefore, the offence under Section 341 of the IPC is loosely laid against the petitioners.
8. If these things have at all happened, the complainant would not have taken four months to register a crime of an incident that happened on 08.05.2023. Therefore, the complaint is full of embellishments. The Apex Court considers this very issue and holds that complaints which come about after unexplained inordinate delay, the Courts must be circumspect in permitting investigation in such cases. It is apposite to refer the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of CHANCHALPATI DAS v. STATE OF WEST BENGAL2, wherein, it is held as follows:
"13. It cannot be gainsaid that the High Courts have power to quash the proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 of Cr. P.C. to prevent the abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. Though the powers under Section 482 should be sparingly exercised and with great caution, the said powers ought to be exercised if a clear case of abuse of process of law is made out by the accused. In the State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy had held that the criminal proceedings could be quashed by the High Court under Section 482 if the court is of the opinion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of justice require that the proceedings are to be quashed.2
2023 SCC OnLine SC 650
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6397 CRL.P No. 13000 of 2023 HC-KAR
14. This Court, way back in 1992 in the landmark decision in case of State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (Supra), after considering relevant provisions more particularly Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. and the principles of law enunciated by this Court relating to the exercise of extra-ordinary powers under Article 226, had laid down certain guidelines for the exercise of powers of quashing, which have been followed in umpteen number of cases. The relevant part thereof reads as under:
"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 or 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 of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) 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.
(2) 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.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6397 CRL.P No. 13000 of 2023 HC-KAR (4) 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.
(5) 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.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the 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, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala 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."
15. In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy this Court had observed that the Court would be justified to quash the proceedings if it finds that initiation or continuance of such proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of Court.
16. As regards inordinate delay in filing the complaint it has been recently observed by this Court in Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of Tamil Nadu that though inordinate delay in itself may not be a ground for quashing of a criminal complaint, however unexplained inordinate delay must be taken into consideration as a very crucial factor and ground for quashing a criminal complaint.
17. In the light of afore-stated legal position, if the facts of the case are appreciated, there remains no shadow of doubt that the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant after an inordinate unexplained delay of eight
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6397 CRL.P No. 13000 of 2023 HC-KAR years was nothing but sheer misuse and abuse of the process of law to settle the personal scores with the appellants, and that continuation of such malicious prosecution would also be further abuse and misuse of process of law, more particularly when neither the allegations made in the complaint nor in the chargesheet, disclose any prima facie case against the appellants. The allegations made against the appellants are so absurd and improbable that no prudent person can ever reach to a conclusion that there is a sufficient ground for proceeding against the appellants-accused.
18. Before parting, a few observations made by this Court with regard to the misuse and abuse of the process of law by filing false and frivolous proceedings in the Courts need to be reproduced. In the Court. In Dalip Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh it was observed that:
"1. For many centuries Indian society cherished two basic values of life i.e. "satya"
(truth) and "ahimsa" (non-violence). Mahavir, Gautam Buddha and Mahatma Gandhi guided the people to ingrain these values in their daily life. Truth constituted an integral part of the justice- delivery system which was in vogue in the pre- Independence era and the people used to feel proud to tell truth in the courts irrespective of the consequences. However, post-Independence period has seen drastic changes in our value system. The materialism has overshadowed the old ethos and the quest for personal gain has become so intense that those involved in litigation do not hesitate to take shelter of falsehood, misrepresentation and suppression of facts in the court proceedings."
19. In Subrata Roy Sahara v. Union of India it was observed as under:
"191. The Indian judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation. Ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants from their compulsive
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6397 CRL.P No. 13000 of 2023 HC-KAR obsession towards senseless and ill- considered claims."
20. We would like to add that just as bad coins drive out good coins from circulation, bad cases drive out good cases from being heard on time. Because of the proliferation of frivolous cases in the courts, the real and genuine cases have to take a backseat and are not being heard for years together. The party who initiates and continues a frivolous, irresponsible and senseless litigation or who abuses the process of the court must be saddled with exemplary cost, so that others may deter to follow such course. The matter should be viewed more seriously when people who claim themselves and project themselves to be the global spiritual leaders, engage themselves into such kind of frivolous litigations and use the court proceedings as a platform to settle their personal scores or to nurture their personal ego.
21. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case and for the reasons stated hereinabove, we deem it appropriate to quash the criminal proceedings pending against the appellants in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Alipore, arising out of the FIR No. 33 of 2009 registered at Ballygunge Police Station, and quash the same."
(Emphasis supplied) In the light of the unequivocal facts narrated hereinabove and the judgment of the Apex Court as afore-quoted, permitting further investigation against the petitioners will become an abuse of the process of the law.
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:6397 CRL.P No. 13000 of 2023 HC-KAR
9. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The criminal petition is allowed.
(ii) The crime in Crime No.341/2023, pending before the 5th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, stands quashed qua the petitioners.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 48 CT:SS