Criminal Petition No. 1925 of 2025 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:13909 CRL.P No. 1925 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF APRIL, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1925 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / BETWEEN: 528(BNSS)) 1. SRI SUNDARARAMAN KRISHNAN S/O S. KRISHNAN AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, R/A NO. 396, 11TH I CROSS, BEHIND TIRUMALAGIRI DEVASTHANA, JP NAGAR 2ND PHASE, BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE 560078. 2. SRI. BHASKAR T S S/O T S SUBRAMANIAM SASTRIGAL, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO. 4, NARAYANAPPA LAYOUT, NEW BANK COLONY, OPP SUB-REGISTER OFFICE, KONANAKUNTE, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE - 560062. 3. SRI. ARAVIND SUBRAMANIAM S/O SUBRAMANIAM S AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS R/AT NO.2587, 18TH MAIN 2ND CROSS, NEAR BESCOM OFFICE ROAD, HAL 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE 560008.
Legal Reasoning
4. SMT. SUNDARARAMAN KAMESWARI W/O K SUNDARA RAMAN AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, NO. 396, 11TH CROSS, Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13909 CRL.P No. 1925 of 2025 J. P. NAGAR, 2ND PHASE, BANGALORE SOUTH, KARNATAKA-560 078. 5. SMT. RAJASHWARI W/O. LATE ARUNACHALAM AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT. NO.A-1 CHICK COTTAGE RESIDENCY, RUSTUMBHAGH BEHIND MANIPAL HOSPITAL, KODIHALLI, BENGALURU CITY-560017. 6. SMT. AKILANDESWARI S D/O SUBRAMANIAM S, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT. NO. 2587, 18TH MAIN 2ND CROSS, NEAR BESCOM OFFICE ROAD, HAL 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE NORTH, H.A.L 3RD STAGE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA, 560008. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. LEELA P DEVADIGA., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CCB (EOW) SQUAD (JEEVAN BHEEMANAGAR PS) REPRESENTED BY SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001. 2. SMT. GAYATHRI GANESH W/O. LATE GANESH ARUNACHAL, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NO.A-1 CHICK COTTAGE RESIDENCY, RUSTUMBHAGH BEHIND MANIPAL HOSPITAL, KODIHALLI, BENGALURU CITY-560017. …RESPONDENTS - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13909 CRL.P No. 1925 of 2025 (BY SRI. M V ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. HIRAN KRISHNA SWAMY., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR DTD 30.01.2025 REGISTERED BY 1st RESPONDENT-JEEVANBIMA NAGAR P.S., IN CR.NO.21/2025 PURSUANT TO COMPLAINT DTD 30.01.2025, PENDING ON THE FILE OF FAST TRACK, COURT-1, CITY COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE CITY, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 12,7,11,8 OF THE POCSO ACT, 2012. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioners have challenged the registration of the First Information Report (FIR) for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 8, 11, and 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). 2. The 2nd respondent lodged the FIR on 30.01.2025 stating that following the death of her father-in-law in June 2022, and on the advice of her mother-in-law, she and her family relocated to Bangalore. Even prior to the demise of her husband, she was residing in Chennai with her daughter. During the Deepavali festival, accused No.2 took her child to Bangalore for a period of 15 days. During that period, accused No.2 allegedly sexually assaulted the child in the absence of his wife and children. On being informed, the complainant warned - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:13909 CRL.P No. 1925 of 2025 accused No.2 that if he repeated such an act, they would lodge a police complaint. 3. Following the demise of her husband, her sister-in-law and her husband—accused No.2—resided with her in the same house. During their stay, accused No.1, under the pretext of teaching the victim girl the Kannada language, took her to the master bedroom, exposed her to pornography, touched her inappropriately, and sexually assaulted her. When the complainant informed her mother-in-law—accused No.5—about the sexual acts committed by accused Nos.1 and 2, she allegedly failed to support her. 4. In April 2023, the petitioners allegedly entered the residence of respondent No.2 and took away gold, silver, and original property documents. At that time, accused No.3, under the pretext of asking for a laptop, entered the victim girl’s room, touched her inappropriately, and sexually assaulted her. Out of fear, the victim girl threw the laptop on the bed and ran towards her grandmother. However, the complainant’s mother- in-law—accused No.5—instead of supporting her, allegedly assaulted the complainant and her daughter. The police registered the FIR for the aforesaid offences, prompting the petitioners to approach this Court. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the alleged sexual assaults by accused Nos.1 and 3 were within the knowledge of the complainant in 2022 and 2023, but the FIR was lodged only in January 2025, after an order of temporary - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:13909 CRL.P No. 1925 of 2025 injunction was passed against the complainant, restraining her from alienating the subject properties in a suit filed by accused No.5—her mother-in-law. He contended that the allegations against the petitioners are omnibus and general, without any specific overt acts detailing how and in what manner each of the accused subjected the survivor to sexual assault so as to constitute an offence under the POCSO Act. 6. In response, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that the averments in the complaint clearly disclose the commission of cognizable offences, and therefore the veracity of the allegations requires investigation, which cannot be undertaken in a petition of this nature. He further submitted that Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act raise a presumption that the accused has committed the alleged offences, and it is for the accused to disprove the same. He emphasized that the registration of the FIR is in strict conformity with the provisions of the POCSO Act and that delay in lodging the FIR cannot be a ground to quash it, especially under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. 7. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered. 8. The allegation of sexual assault by accused No.1 dates back to June 2022, when the complainant, along with her child, relocated to Bengaluru. The first incident involving accused No.1 allegedly sexually assaulting the daughter of respondent No.2 occurred in June 2022, and the second incident involving - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:13909 CRL.P No. 1925 of 2025 accused No.3 allegedly sexually assaulting the complainant’s daughter took place in April 2023. Accused No.1 is the sister’s husband of the complainant, and accused No.2 is the brother of respondent No.2–the complainant. 9. Accused No.3 is the sister’s son of the complainant, accused No.4 is the sister of the complainant, accused No.5 is the mother-in-law of respondent No.2–the complainant, and accused No.6 is also the sister of respondent No.2. 10. Accused No.5 (mother-in-law) instituted a suit in O.S. No.5828/2023 against respondent No.2 and the victim, seeking partition and separate possession of her legitimate share in the suit schedule properties left behind by her deceased son. In the said suit, an order of temporary injunction was passed against the complainant and her daughter, restraining them from alienating the suit schedule properties. After the appearance of the complainant, the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat to explore the possibility of a settlement between the parties. However, no consensus was reached, and the mediation failed. The interim order granted on 09.03.2024 continues to remain in force. The complainant filed her written statement in the said suit on 15.03.2024. A perusal of the statement indicates that, except for filing a counterclaim, there is no allegation that her daughter was subjected to sexual assault by accused Nos.1 and 3, nor any assertion that accused No.5 supported the alleged sexual assaults. Notably, the impugned FIR was lodged on 30.01.2025 by the complainant and not by the victim, while the written statement was already pending consideration. - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:13909 CRL.P No. 1925 of 2025 11. The alleged incidents of sexual assault by accused Nos.1 to 3 were within the knowledge of the complainant, as is evident from the contents of the FIR. However, the complaint does not contain any explanation or averment accounting for the delay of more than two years from the date of the alleged incidents in lodging the FIR. Though the circular issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development on 16.10.2018 clarifies that there is no period of limitation prescribed under Section 19 of the POCSO Act for reporting offences, and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has taken a similar view, those principles are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Here, the complainant was fully aware of the alleged acts by accused Nos.1 and 3 and was not prevented in any manner from reporting the same at the earliest opportunity. Moreover, accused No.5 (mother-in-law) had instituted a civil suit for partition and separate possession, and the FIR was lodged during the pendency of the interim injunction operating against the complainant. Furthermore, the written statement filed in the suit does not contain even a whisper suggesting that accused No.5 supported accused Nos.1 and 3 in committing the alleged sexual assault. Therefore, the allegations made in the FIR appear to arise out of a civil dispute between accused No.5 and the complainant and were lodged merely on the ground that accused No.5 allegedly supported accused Nos.1 and 3 instead of the complainant. 12. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the FIR was lodged with malice and without probable cause, solely to wreak vengeance and with a - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:13909 CRL.P No. 1925 of 2025 revengeful intent, in order to pressurize the petitioners to arrive at a settlement. Therefore, the continuation of the investigation would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 13. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned FIR registered in Crime No.21/2025 by the Jeevan Bheemanagar Police Station (CCB Women Squad) is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 96