Karnataka High Court
Sri Bellayya vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 April, 2026
-1-
WP NO.201249 OF 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 24th of DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
WRIT PETITION NO. 201249 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. BELLAYYA
S/O LATE MAREPPA KOLUR/NAYAK
AGED: 28 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER
R/O NEAR POOJA RICR MILL
KATARKI ROAD, MANVI
RAICHUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-584123
NOW AT: GOVERNMENT SCHOOL
VIVEKANANDA ROAD, CHEEMASANDRA
VILLAGE, VIRONAGAR POST,
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560049.
2. SMT. YALLAMMA
W/O LATE MAREPPA KOLUR/NAYAK
AGED: 50 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER
R/O NEAR POOJA RICR MILL
KATARKI ROAD, MANVI
RAICHUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-584123
NOW AT: GOVERNMENT SCHOOL
VIVEKANANDA ROAD, CHEEMASANDRA
VILLAGE, VIRONAGAR POST
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560049.
3. SRI. ANJANAYYA
S/O LATE MAREPPA KOLUR/NAYAK
AGED: 32 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER
R/O NEAR POOJA RICR MILL
KATARKI ROAD, MANVI
RAICHUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-584123
NOW AT: GOVERNMENT SCHOOL
VIVEKANANDA ROAD, CHEEMASANDRA
-2-
WP NO.201249 OF 2026
VILLAGE, VIRONAGAR POST
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560049.
4. SRI. DEVARAJ
S/O LATE MAREPPA KOLUR/NAYAK
AGED: 30 YEARS, OCC: LABOURER
R/O NEAR POOJA RICR MILL
KATARKI ROAD, MANVI
RAICHUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA-584123
NOW AT: GOVERNMENT SCHOOL
VIVEKANANDA ROAD, CHEEMASANDRA
VILLAGE, VIRONAGAR POST
BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560049.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. MANV. PRABHAKAR KULKARNI AND
SRI. BASAVAKIRAN G R ADVOCATES)
AND:
1 THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY THE STATEION
HOUSE OFFICER, MANVI TOWN
POLICE STATION, MANVI, RAICHUR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-584123
REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
ADVOCATE GENERAL'S OFFICE
HIGH Court BUILDING
KALABURAGI-585103
2 SMT. BHARATHI W/O SRI. BELLAYYA
AGED 24 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEWIFE
R/O NEAR PUJA RICE MILL
HATTIRA KATHARI ROAD
MANVI TOWN, VILLAGE KARADIGUDDA
TALUK MANVI, RAICHUR DISTRICT
KARNATAKA-584123.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL ADV., FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
R/W SEC. 528 OF BNSS 2023, R/W ARTICLE 227 OF THE OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT,
-3-
WP NO.201249 OF 2026
ORDER OR DIRECTION IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING
THE FIR IN CRIME NO.75/2026 DATED 03.03.2026 AT
ANNEXURE-A, REGISTERED AT MANVI TOWN POLICE STATION,
RAICHUR DISTRICT ON 03.03.2026 FOR THE ALLEGED
OFFENCES UNDER SECTIONS 85, 115(2), 352 AND 351(2)
READ WITH SECTION 3(5) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA
SANHITA, 2023, PENDING BEFORE THE 1ST ADDL. CIVIL JDUGE
(SR.DN) AND CJM COURT, MANVI, RAICHUR DISTRICT, AND
ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS INCLUDING THE INVESTIGATION,
PROCEEDINGS AND ANY CHARGESHEET/FINAL RECOPRT OT BE
FILED PURSUANT THERETO, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY; B) ISSUE A WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE COMPLAINT DATED
03.03.2026 AT ANNEXURE-B LODGED BY RESPONDENT No.2
BEFORE THE RESPONDENT NO.1/POLICE AND ALL FURHTER
PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO AND ETC.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR ORDERS ON 21.04.2026, COMING ON FOR
"PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS" THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE
THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA
CAV ORDER
The petitioners have filed this petition under Articles
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w 528 of
Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking
following relief:
"Wherefore, for the reasons stated above, the
Petitioners most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble
Court be pleased to:
a. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in nature of
Certiorari Quashing the FIR in Crime No. 75/2026
-4-
WP NO.201249 OF 2026
dated 03.03.2026 at Annexure-A, registered at
Manvi Town Police Station, Raichur District on
03.03.2026 for the alleged offences under Sections
85, 115(2), 352 and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of
the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending before
the 1st Addl. Civil Judge (Sr.Dn) & CJM Court, Manvi,
Raichur District, and all further proceedings including
the investigation, proceedings and any charge
sheet/final report to be filed pursuant thereto, in the
interest of justice and equity;
b. Issue a Writ, Order or Direction in nature of
Certiorari Quashing the Complaint dated 03.03.2026
at Annexure-B lodged by Respondent No.2 before the
Respondent No.1/Police and all further proceedings
pursuant thereto;
c. Such further or other reliefs be granted as this
Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and
circumstances of the case."
2. On the basis of the complaint filed by
Smt.Bharati, Manvi Police have registered the case in
Crime No.75/2026 against the petitioners for the
commission of offence punishable under Sections 85,
115(2), 352 and 351(2) r/w 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya
Sanhita, 2023. The petitioners have filed this petitioner
-5-
WP NO.201249 OF 2026
seeking to quash the proceedings initiated against them in
Crime No.75/2026.
3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for
the parties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged
the following grounds;
1. 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. Permitting the criminal process to
go on against the Petitioners in such a situation
would, therefore, result in clear and patent
injustice.
2. Pertinently, Section 85 of the BNS, 2023
(the legislative successor to Section 498-A of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860) punishes the husband
or his relatives for subjecting a woman to
'cruelty. The provision defines 'cruelty' as: (a)
-6-
WP NO.201249 OF 2026
wilful conduct of such a nature as is likely to
drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause
grave injury or danger to her life, limb or health
(whether mental or physical); OR (b)
harassment of the woman where such
harassment is with a view to coercing her or any
person related to her to meet any unlawful
demand for any property or valuable security.
3. A thorough reading of the complaint upon
which the FIR is founded reveals that there is not
a single word, sentence, or allegation express or
implied pertaining to any demand for dowry,
property, or valuable security. The entire
complaint revolves around character-suspicion
allegations and the specific incident of 25-02-
2026, which is an attempt to coerce consent for
a second marriage. In the complete absence of
any property demand, part (b) of the definition is
not attracted. As regards part (a), the
generalised allegations of harassment' narrated
-7-
WP NO.201249 OF 2026
in the complaint, lacking any date, place, or
specific incident, cannot constitute 'wilful conduct
likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or
cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or
health as required by the statute.
4. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh
Sharma vs. State of U.P., (2018) 10 SCC
472, while reviewing the misuse of Section 498-
A IPC (now Section 85 BNS), held that the
provision was introduced to combat real cruelty
and dowry harassment, and its invocation in
cases absent any such element amounts to an
abuse of process and Uncalled for arrest may
ruin the chances of settlement. In the present
case, the invocation of Section 85 BNS in the
total absence of any dowry demand or property
demand renders the FIR, to that extent, wholly
unsustainable on the face of the record.
5. Section 115(2) of BNS, 2023 penalises the
offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt. For
-8-
WP NO.201249 OF 2026
this section to be attracted, the prosecution must
establish that the accused voluntarily caused
hurt that falls within the definition of grievous
hurt under Section 114 of BNS, 2023 (i.e.,
emasculation, permanent privation of
sight/hearing. privation of any member or joint,
destruction or permanent impairment of the
powers of any member or joint, permanent
disfiguration of head or face, fracture or
dislocation of a bone or tooth, or hurt which
endangers life or which causes the sufferer to be
in severe bodily pain for twenty days).
6. The complaint contains no allegation,
statement or suggestion of any grievous hurt as
defined above being caused to Respondent No.
2. Critically, the complaint itself states that when
the Petitioners 'came to assault her, her own
mother, brother Basavaraja, and neighbour
Yankob immediately intervened and physically
separated the parties. The complainant
-9-
WP NO.201249 OF 2026
therefore, on her own admission, establishes
that no such alleged act of physical assault was
carried to completion. No injury is described; no
medical treatment is referred to; and no medical
record or certificate is appended to the
complaint. Section 115(2) is fundamentally
inapplicable.
7. Section 352 of BNS, 2023 penalises assault
or use of criminal force on a woman with intent
to outrage her modesty. The essential ingredient
of this offence is that the assault or use of
criminal force must be actuated by the intention
to outrage the modesty of the woman. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court has consistently held
that the culpable intention of the accused is the
crux of the offence under this section.
8. The complaint does not contain neither
expressly nor by implication any allegation of
any act committed by any of the Petitioners with
the intention of outraging the modesty of
- 10 -
WP NO.201249 OF 2026
Respondent No. 2. The alleged confrontation on
25.02.2026 related entirely to the demand for an
alleged consent for a second marriage There is
no allegation whatsoever of any act of a sexual
nature or an act intended to outrage the
complainant's dignity or modesty. The invocation
of Section 352 BNS against all four Petitioners, in
the complete absence of any such allegation, is
ex facie unsustainable, misconceived and
constitutes a gross abuse of process.
9. Section 351 of BNS, 2023 deals with
criminal intimidation. Sub-section (2) provides
for a higher punishment where the threat is to
cause death or grievous hurt. While the
complaint does allege a verbal threat to kill the
complainant, it is submitted that: (i) the alleged
threat was not an independent criminal act but
was conditioned entirely upon and connected to
the demand for consent for a second marriage;
(u) the threat, if any, was made after the alleged
- 11 -
WP NO.201249 OF 2026
confrontation was already separated; and (iii) for
the aggravated form under Section 351(2), the
prosecution must establish not merely the words
but also the intention to cause alarm and the
gravity of the threat none of which are
substantiated by any specific, credible, and
independently corroborated material in the FIR.
10. The complaint does not attribute any
specific criminal act to any specific accused.
Petitioners Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Smt. Yallamma
(mother-in-law), Sri. Anjinappa and Sri.
Devaraja (relatives) named as a group
throughout the complaint, without any allegation
specifying what individual role each of them
played in any particular incident, on any
particular date, at any particular place. This is a
classic example of the omnibus group allegation
pattern that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
repeatedly deprecated and quashed.
- 12 -
WP NO.201249 OF 2026
11. Pertinently on the alleged date all the
accused/petitioners were at Bengaluru and were
not present at the alleged place of occurrence of
the incident. The complainant has made false
accusations against all the family members
deliberately to compel the Petitioner No.1 to
come to terms with her.
12. More importantly, the 1st Petitioner herein
had also issued a legal notice dated 27.01.2026
to Respondent No 2/Complainant for restitution
of conjugal rights despite her being mean and
abusive to his old age Mother, making
unreasonable materialistic demands, and
repeated threats by her close relative to compel
the 1st Petitioner to leave his occupation and go
and stay with her at her parental home.
13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kahkashan
Kausar @ Sonam u. State of Bihar, (2022) 6
SCC 599, quashing an FIR against relatives of
the husband under Section 498-A, held that
- 13 -
WP NO.201249 OF 2026
where the allegations are 'general and omnibus
and do not specifically implicate the accused in
any crime, continuation of prosecution
constitutes an abuse of process. The Court
emphasized that a criminal trial, even one
ending in acquittal, leaves a permanent and
indelible scar on the reputation of the accused.
14. Similarly, in Geeta Mehrotra v. State of
U.P., (2012) 10 SCC 741, the Court observed
that merely numbering the relatives of the
husband in an FIR, without attributing specific
criminal acts to each, cannot form the basis for
prosecution of those relatives. Petitioners Nos. 2
to 4 fall squarely within this category and
deserve to be protected from an abuse of
criminal process.
15. The FIR in its entirety arises from a
matrimonial dispute. The specific episode
narrated in the complaint the demand for
consent to an alleged second marriage may give
- 14 -
WP NO.201249 OF 2026
rise, at most, to a civil complaint or a complaint
under the law relating to bigamy, it does not
constitute the multiple grave offences invoked in
the FIR. The FIR has been registered not to
advance the cause of justice but to harass and
pressurize the Petitioners and to gain an unfair
advantage in the inipending matrimonial legal
proceedings.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti
Gupta v. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC
667, after a comprehensive survey of cases,
deprecated in the strongest possible terms the
growing tendency to implicate every member of
the husband's family in Section 498-A FIRs
arising out of matrimonial discord, and held that
Courts must exercise their power to quash such
FIRs to prevent miscarriage of justice. The Court
observed that most such complaints are filed
without real basis and ought to be viewed with
circumspection.
- 15 -
WP NO.201249 OF 2026
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of
Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC
335, laid down seven categories of cases in
which the inherent power under Section 482
CrPC (now Section 528 BNSS) can be exercised
to quash FIRs and criminal proceedings. The
present case falls squarely under the following
categories enumerated therein:
(i) Category 1: Where the allegations in the FIR,
even if taken at face value and accepted in
entirety, do not prima facie constitute any
offence or make out a case against the accused,
specifically as regards Section 85 BNS (no dowry
demand), Section 115(2) BNS (no grievous hurt,
attempt not completed), and Section 352 BNS
(no act to outrage modesty);
(ii) Category 3: Where uncontroverted and
unimpeachable evidence in the form of the
complaint itself makes it impossible for the
accused to be convicted the complaint's own
disclosure that the assault was intercepted
negates Section 115(2);
(iii) Category 7: Where the criminal proceeding
is manifestly attended with malafides and has
been maliciously instituted with an ulterior
motive of wreaking vengeance on the accused
which is clearly the case here, as the FIR is
designed to secure an advantage in the
matrimonial dispute.
- 16 -
WP NO.201249 OF 2026
18. The fundamental right to life and personal
liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the
Constitution of India has been interpreted to
include the right to fair procedure, the right
against arbitrary prosecution and the right to be
free from vexatious criminal proceedings
instituted without foundation. Petitioners Nos. 2
to 4, particularly elderly Smt. Yallamma (the
Mother-in-law), have been arraigned as accused
and face the prospect of arrest, detention, and
public humiliation on the basis of generalised,
unfounded allegations that do not disclose any
cognizable offence against them individually.
This Court must intervene to protect their
constitutional rights.
19. Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023 (analogous to
Section 34 IPC) provides for joint criminal
liability where a criminal act is done by several
persons in furtherance of the common intention
of all. This provision does not create an
- 17 -
WP NO.201249 OF 2026
independent offence; it is a rule of evidence and
liability that must necessarily ride on the
commission of an established primary offence by
the group. Once it is demonstrated, as above,
that the primary offences under Sections 85,
115(2), 352 and 351(2) of BNS, 2023 are not
made out on the face of the FIR, Section 3(5)
has no independent application and must fall to
the ground along with the primary charges.
20. That the false implication of the Petitioners
in the FIR amounts to the violation of the Right
to Life of the Petitioner envisaged under article
21 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
5. Further, he submits that the Investigating
Officer has failed to conduct preliminary enquiry before
initiation of the proceedings against the petitioners. The
Investigating Officer has not complied the circular issued
by the Government of Karnataka (Police Department)
No.L&O/MISC/06/2026 dated 07.02.2026 and also SOP
issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of
- 18 -
WP NO.201249 OF 2026
India, New Delhi-37 so also the relied the circular
No.01/2024 issued by Government of Meghalaya, Office of
the Director General of Police, Meghalaya, Shillong, which
are produced before the Court. To substantiate his
arguments, he relied on the following decisions:
(a) Imran Pratapgadhi Vs. State of Gujarat, 2025 INSC 410;
(b) Lalita Kumari Vs. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1;
(c) Sri Rama Sugar Industries Vs. State of A.P.,
(1974) 1 SCC 534;
(d) State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Jogendra Singh,
AIR 1963 SC 1618
(e) Babu Venkatesh and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and
Another, (2022) 5 SCC 639;
(f) Shrinivasa J T and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and
Another, order dated 07.04.2025 in Criminal Petition
No.9517/2024.
(g) Preeti Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand, (2010) 7 SCC 667;
(h) Digambar Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2024 SCC Online SC
3836
(i) Aditya Mohan Nigam and Others Vs. The State (NCT of
Delhi) and Others, 2026 SCC Online Del 106;
(j) K. Subba Rao Vs. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC
452;
(k) Ghanshyam Soni Vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2025 SCC
Online SC 1301;
(l) Dara Lakshmi Narayana and Others Vs. State of
Telangana and Another, SLP (Crl.) No.16239 of 2024:
(m) Rajesh Sharma Vs. State of U.P., (2018) 10 SCC 472;
(n) Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar Vs. Union of India,
(2018) 10 SCC 443:
- 19 -
WP NO.201249 OF 2026
(o) Shivangi Bansal Vs. Sahib Bansal, 2025 SCC Online SC
1494;
(p) Mukesh Bansal Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another,
Criminal Revision No.1126/2022;
(q) Ashish Dave Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Another,
SLP (Crl.)No.19369/2025;
6. On all these grounds he sought to allow the
petition.
7. As against this, learned High Court Government
Pleader would submit that the alleged commission of
offences are cognizable in nature. After due enquiry, the
Investigating Officer has registered the case against the
accused and there are no grounds to quash the
proceedings. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition.
8. I have examined the materials placed before
this Court.
9. On the basis of the complaint filed by
Smt.Bharati, Manvi Police Station have registered the case
in Crime No.75/2026 against the accused Nos.1 to 4 for
the commission of offence under Section 85, 115(2), 352
and 351(2) read with Section 3(5) of the BNS, 2023.
10. In the complaint it is stated as under:
- 20 -
WP NO.201249 OF 2026
" ೕ ಾ ದ ಷಯದ°è ಾನು ೕಮ ಾರ ಗಂಡ ೆಳ ಯ
ೋಳ ರು,ಎಂ ವ#ಾ 24 ವಷ$ %ಾ ಾಯಕ ಉ ಮ ೆ(ೆಲಸ +ಾ: ಪ-%ಾ .ೈ0
12 ಹ 4ರ ಾತರ6 .ೋ7 8ಾನ ಇದು: ತಮ;°è, ದೂರು ಸ<=,ಸುವ>ೇ ೆಂದ.ೆ,
ನನ? ತವರು ಮ ೆ 8ಾನ @ಾಲೂಕ ಕರAಗುBಾC (ಾ ಮ ಇದು:, ನಮ; ತಂ>ೆ 6 ಷDಯ
ೋEೆ ಈತನು ಸು8ಾರು 15 ವಷ$ದ Gಂ>ೆ ೕH ೊಂAದು:, @ಾI ಲJKೕ ಇದು:,
ನನ(ೆ ಒಬN ಅಣD ಬಸವ.ಾಜ ಮತು4 ಇಬNರು ತಂRಯರು ಇರು@ಾ4.ೆ, ಾನು S.ಎ
ಓU ೊಂAರು@ೆ4ೕ ೆ.
ನನ? ಮದುVೆಯನು? ನಮ; @ಾI ಮತು4 ಗುರು GHಯರು +ೇH ಕುಲ
ಸಂWಾ ಯದಂ@ೆ U ಾಂಕ 19-4-2024 ರಂದು 8ಾನ ಯ ಪ-%ಾ .ೈ0 12
ಹ 4ರ ಾತರ6 .ೋ7 ನ XVಾ #ಾದ ೆಳ ಯ ತಂ>ೆ U:ಮ.ೆಪY ೋಳ ರು,ಎಂ
ಈತ ೊಂU(ೆ ವರನ ಸZಗೃಹದ<= ಮದುVೆ 8ಾA ೊ\]ದು: ಇರುತ4>ೆ. ಮದುVೆಯ
ನಂತರ ಾನು ಗಂಡನ ಮ ೆ(ೆ ನBೆಯಲು _ೋRದು: ಮ ೆಯ<= ಾನು ನನ? ಗಂಡ
ೆಳ ಯ , ಅvÉÛ ಯಲ=ಮ; ಗಂಡ U:ಮ.ೆಪY ಾವಂ`.ಾದ ಆಂbನಯ >ೇವ.ಾಜ ಕೂA
ಇ>ೆ:ವc. ಮದುVೆಯ ನಂತರ ಒಂದು ಂಗಳತನಕ ಗಂಡನ ಮ ೆಯವರು ನನ?ನು?
dೆ ಾ?R ೋA ೊಂAದು: ನಂತರದ Uನಗಳ<= ನನ? ಗಂಡ ಮತು4 ಅvÉÛ ಯಲ=ಮ;,
ಾವಂ`.ಾದ ಆಂbನಯ >ೇವ.ಾಜ ಇವರುಗಳe +ೇH ನನ(ೆ " Xೕನು ೋಡಲು
dೆ ಾ?R ಾ=, Xನ(ೆ ಸH#ಾR ಅಡು(ೆ 8ಾಡಲು ಬರುವU ಾ=, ಸೂfೇ ಅಂ@ಾ
ಅVಾಚ VಾR ೈದು 8ಾನ ಕ ಮತು4 >ೈGಕ Gಂ+ೆಯನು? Xೕಡಲು Wಾ ರಂಭ
8ಾAದರು ಅಲ=>ೇ ನನ? ಗಂಡನು Xೕನು ಅವH(ೆ ೋಡು 4ೕ, ಇವH(ೆ ೋಡು 4
ಅಂ@ಾ ನನ? ೕಲದ ೕ ೆ ಸಂಶಯ ಪಡು@ಾ4, ೈIಂದ _ೊBೆ ಬBೆ 8ಾಡು 4ದ:ನು
ಾನು ಈ ಷಯವನು? ನಮ; ತವರು ಮ ೆಯವH(ೆ j >ಾಗ ನಮ; ತವರು
ಮ ೆಯವರು ಸಹ ಬಂದು ನನ? ಗಂಡ ಮತು4 ಗಂಡನ ಮ ೆಯವH(ೆ j _ೇj
_ೋRದ:ರು, ಆದರೂ ಅವರು ನನ(ೆ @ೊಂದ.ೆ ೊಡುವದು S\]ರ< ಾ=.
ನಂತರ ಾವc ಗಂಡ _ೆಂಡ & ಮ ೆಯವರು ಕೂA ದುAದು ನ?ಲು
ೆಂಗಳ H(ೆ _ೋR ಅ<=kೕ ಇzÉÝವc. ಅ<=ಯು ಸಹ ನನ(ೆ ಪHೕತ ೕ<ನಂ@ೆ
8ಾನ ಕ ಮತು4 >ೈGಕ Gಂ+ೆಯನು? Xೕಡು 4ದ:Hಂದ ಾನು ಕfೆದ ಒಂದು
ವಷ$Uಂದ ೆಂಗಳ HXಂದ ನಮ; ತವರು ಮ ೆ ಕರAಗುBಾC (ಾ ಮ ೆ ಬಂದು
ಇ°èkೕ ಇ>ೆ:ನು. ನಮ; ತವರು ಮ ೆಯವರು ಗಂಡನ ಮ ೆಯವH(ೆ lೕನು 8ಾA
- 21 -
WP NO.201249 OF 2026
ಾರ ಯನು? ಕ.ೆದು ೊಂಡು _ೋR ಸಂ+ಾರ 8ಾA ೊj H ಅಂ@ಾ _ೇjದನೂ?
ಅವರು ನಮ(ೆ ಆ ೆಯ ಅವಶ ಕ@ೆ ಇ ಾ= ೇ ಾದ.ೆ ಬ.ೆದು ೊಡ< ೆj ಯ X(ೆ ೇ.ೆ
ಮದುVೆ 8ಾಡು@ೆ4ೕVೆ ಅಂ@ಾ _ೇಳe@ಾ4 ಬಂUರು@ಾ4.ೆ.
ಅದರಂ@ೆ _ೋದ Vಾರ U ಾಂಕ 25-2-2026 ರಂದು ಮುಂ%ಾ ೆ 10-00
ಗಂEೆ ಸು8ಾH(ೆ ೆಂಗಳ HXಂದ ನನ? ಗಂಡ ೆj ಯ ಅ@ೆ4 ಯಲ=ಮ; ಾವಂU.ಾದ
ಆಂbನಯ >ೇವ.ಾಜ ಇವರುಗಳe ಕರAಗುBಾCದ ನಮ; ತವರು ಮ ೆ(ೆ ಬಂದು
ನ ೊ?ಂU(ೆ ಜಗfಾ @ೆ(ೆದು '" ಎ ೇ ಸೂfೇ ಾವc Xನ? ಗಂಡX(ೆ ೇ.ೆ ಮದುVೆ
8ಾಡು@ೆ4ೕVೆ ಅದ ೆ Xೕನು ಗಂಡ ೇ ಾR ಾ= ಅಂ@ಾ ಬ.ೆದು ೊಡು ಅಂ@ಾ ನನ(ೆ
ಒ@ಾ4ಯ 8ಾAದು:, ಅದ ೆ ಾನು ನನ(ೆ ಗಂಡ ೇಕು, ಬ.ೆದು ೊಡುವU ಾ= ಅಂ@ಾ
_ೇjದ ೆ ಎ ಾ=ರು +ೇH ನನ(ೆ ೈಗjಂದ ೖ ೈ(ೆ _ೊBೆಯಲು ಹ 4>ಾಗ ನಮ;
@ಾI ಮತು4 ಅಣD. ಬಸವ.ಾಜ _ಾಗೂ ನಮ; >ೊಡCಪY ಯಂ ೋಬ ಇವರುಗಳe
ಬಂದು SA ೊಂಡರು. ಆಗ ಅವರು Xೕನು ಗಂಡ ೇ6 ಾ= ಅಂ@ಾ ಬ.ೆದು ೊಡUದ:<=
Xನ?ನು? +ಾI ೆಳ ಯ X(ೆ ೇ.ೆ ಲಗ? 8ಾಡು@ೆ4ೕVೆಂದು bೕವದ ೆದH ೆಯನು?
_ಾ6 _ೊರಟು _ೋದರು, ನಂತರ ಾನು ಈ ಬ(ೆn ಮ ೆಯ<= dಾರ 8ಾA ೊಂಡು
ಈ Uವಸ ನಮ; ಅಣD ೊಂU(ೆ ತಡVಾR ಬಂದು ದೂರು XೕAದು: ಇರುತ4>ೆ.
ಾರಣ ೕಲ ಂಡ ನನ? ಗಂಡ ಮತು4 ಗಂಡನ ಮ ೆಯವರ ರುದo ಾನೂನು
ಪ ಾರ ಕ ಮ ಜರು ಸಲು ನಂ ."
11. The alleged commission of offence under
Sections 85, 115(2), 351(2) of BNS are cognizable in
nature punishable with imprisonment for a term which
may extent to 3 years and shall also liable to fine.
12. It is settled principal of law that the FIR is not
encyclopedia and does not need to contain all minute
details of an incident. Its primary purpose is to set the
criminal law in motion, not to serve as a detailed,
- 22 -
WP NO.201249 OF 2026
exhaustive account of the crime. The law does not require
the mentioning of all the ingredients of the offence in the
FIR. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Somjeet
Mallick Vs. State of Jharkhand reported in 2024 INSC
772, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that an FIR is
not an encyclopedia of all imputations. The focus should
be on the gravamen (core) of the accusations to determine
if a cognizable offense is disclosed.
13. In the case of hand, the contents of FIR reveals
that there are prima facie materials to constitute the
offence under alleged commission of offences. Therefore,
the IO has clearly mentioned in Column No.7C of the FIR
that, he "Took up the investigation". Since there are prime
facie materials to proceed for investigation. The IO has
registered the case as the alleged offences are cognizable
offences. At this stage, on the basis of the grounds urged
by the learned counsel for the petitioner along with the
citations relied, the proceedings cannot be quashed.
Hence, at this stage arguments advanced on behalf of
petitioner cannot be accepted.
- 23 -
WP NO.201249 OF 2026
14. A careful examination of the entire material on
record I do not find any grounds to quash the proceedings.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE Msr/TIN CT:BH