Geeta v. State of Karnataka - Criminal Petition

## Unlock Advanced Research with PRISM AI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

• Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc -... Upgrade to Premium [Cites 8, Cited by 0 ] ### Karnataka High Court

Geeta W/O Abhishek Patil vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 March, 2026

Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar

Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar

-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4365
CRL.P No. 101641 of 2025

                   HC-KAR

                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD

                            DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF MARCH 2026

                                           BEFORE

                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

                             CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101641 OF 2025
                                    (482([Cr.PC](https://indiankanoon.org/doc/445276/))/528(BNSS))

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   GEETA
                        W/O. ABHISHEK PATIL
                        AGE. 35 YEARS,
                        OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
                        R/O. MALAMADDI,
                        DHARWAD,
                        DIST. DHARWAD.

                   2.   MERLIN

VISHAL
NINGAPPA W/O. SUMENTH KARI @ KERI
PATTIHAL AGE. 35 YEARS,
OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK,
Digitally signed by
VISHAL NINGAPPA
PATTIHAL
R/O. MISSION COMPOUND,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARWAR ROAD,
KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH HUBBALLI.
... PETITIONERS

                   (BY SRI. P.N.HOSAMANE, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
                        BY VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION,
                        HUBBALLI,
                        REPRESENTED BY SPP,
                       -2-
                                    NC: 2026:KHC-D:4365
                            CRL.P No. 101641 of 2025

HC-KAR

 HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH,
 DHARWAD-580011.

1. LAXMI W/O. ASHOK RAJANAL AGE. 31 YEARS, OCC. PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING, R/O. SHRADHA APARTMENTS LINGARAJNAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD-580001. ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED)

 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF

CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
OF COURT BELOW AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING
INITIATED BY FILING CHARGE SHEET IN VIDYANAGAR P.S.
CR.NO.16/2022 PENDING BEFORE COURT OF I ADDL.CIVIL
JUDGE AND JMFC HUBBALLI IN CC NO.6087/2022
PENDING FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 109, 323,
341, 448, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, IN RESPECT OF
PRESENT PETITIONERS (ACCUSED NO.3 AND 4); AND ETC.

 THIS   CRIMINAL    PETITION        COMING    ON    FOR

ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS

UNDER:

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
-3-
NC: 2026:KHC-D:4365
CRL.P No. 101641 of 2025

HC-KAR

                   ORAL ORDER 1.    This Criminal Petition is filed by accused No.3 -

Geeta and accused No.4 - Merlin under Section 482 of the

Cr.P.C. / Section 528 of BNSS, 2023, praying to quash the

proceedings in C.C. No.6087 of 2022, arising out of Crime

No.16 of 2022 of Vidyanagar Police Station, pending on the

file of the I Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hubballi,

registered for offences punishable under Sections 109, 323, 341, 448, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader

appearing for respondent No.1 - State. In spite of service of

notice, respondent No.2 remains absent and unrepresented.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend

that the names of these petitioners and their presence have

not been stated by the first informant in her complaint. The

first informant, subsequently, in her further statement

recorded on 05.03.2022 (after one month of the complaint),

has stated the presence of two women along with accused -4- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4365 CRL.P No. 101641 of 2025 HC-KAR

Rahul and their overt acts. He further contended that the

petitioners and other accused, who are stated to have gone to

the house of the first informant in support of Shaktiraj, who

had purchased the property and got it cancelled, itself

indicates that the said Shaktiraj has no interest in the

property of the first informant, as he got his sale deed

cancelled. The alleged CW6 to CW8 eyewitnesses are created

witnesses. With this, the learned counsel for the petitioners

prays for allowing the petition.

1. Per contra, the learned High Court Government

Pleader would contend that CW6 has stated the presence of

the petitioners at the time of the incident and that they were

abusing the first informant. CW7 and CW8 have also

specifically stated the presence of these petitioners at the time

of the incident and that they pushed the first informant and

tore her clothes. The statements of CW6 to CW8 have been

recorded immediately after the date of the incident. The

wound certificate of the first informant indicates that she has

sustained one injury. The charge sheet material shows that -5- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4365 CRL.P No. 101641 of 2025 HC-KAR

there is a case against the petitioners for the offences alleged.

With this, the learned High Court Government Pleader prays

to reject the petition.

1. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

the parties and perused the charge sheet and other material

placed on record, on the complaint of the first informant, the

case came to be registered in Crime No.16 of 2022 in

Vidyanagar Police Station against three accused persons and

13 unknown persons. In the first information filed by

respondent No.2, there is no mention of the presence of the

petitioners; it is stated that along with accused Nos.1 to 3,

there were 13 other persons. In the further statement of the

first informant recorded on 05.03.2022, for the first time she

has stated the presence of two women and their overt acts,

and in her statement recorded on 23.03.2022, she has stated

that the said women are the petitioners herein. CW6 to CW8

are eyewitnesses as per the charge sheet. The statement of

CW6 indicates that at the time of the incident there were two

women present along with one Rahul. CW7 and CW8 have -6- NC: 2026:KHC-D:4365 CRL.P No. 101641 of 2025 HC-KAR

also stated the presence of the women at the time of the

incident and that they pushed the first informant and tore her

clothes.

1. Considering the above aspects, at this stage, it

cannot be said that the proceedings against the petitioners

are an abuse of process of law. There are no grounds for

quashing the proceedings against the petitioners. In the

result, the petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

(SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR)
VNP / CT: VH
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42