Two rival complaints, one apartment corridor and a pile of garbage: the Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Cross-Cases, holding that contested accounts and medical records call for a trial and that physical violence is never an acceptable way to settle a neighbourhood dispute.
Bengaluru: Two sets of criminal proceedings born of a quarrel over garbage left in the common corridor of an apartment complex will go to trial, the Karnataka High Court has ruled, holding that who started the altercation and how the injuries came about can only be decided on evidence, and reminding residents that the call to love thy neighbour demands civility and restraint [Chandrashekhar Gupta alias Chandra Shekhar and Another v. State of Karnataka and Another].
In an order dated October 5, 2026, Justice Suraj Govindaraj dismissed Criminal Petition Nos. 4984 of 2024 and 1498 of 2025, both filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023). The allegations in the rival complaints are untested, the Court has expressed no opinion on guilt or innocence, and all accused remain presumed innocent.
“Love thy neighbour”
Before parting with the matter, the Court reflected on civility between residents who share a building:
“The familiar exhortation, ‘Love thy neighbour’, embodies a principle of practical importance for peaceful coexistence. It does not demand that neighbours agree on every matter or surrender their legitimate rights. It calls for civility, tolerance, mutual consideration and a willingness to resolve differences without unnecessary confrontation.”
Disputes over garbage and other common areas, the Court said, are better settled through a calm conversation or through the residents’ association than by escalation, and a person with a grievance must turn to lawful remedies. It observed:
“The resort to physical violence is never an acceptable means of resolving a neighbourhood dispute.”
Why the Court would not quash
The medical records placed before the Court describe fractures of both nasal bones and an eyelid laceration that needed repair under general anaesthesia in one case, while the opinion in the other records one injury as grievous. The Court noted that these records prima facie support the allegations of injury, even as the rival complaints give materially contested accounts of how the fight began and progressed.
The Court held that who initiated the altercation, the precise role of each individual, the circumstances in which the injuries were sustained and the culpability, if any, of the respective accused can be decided only on evidence at trial. It said:
“In these circumstances, the Court finds no sufficient ground to quash the proceedings.”
The fight, as the two sides tell it
The dispute broke out at about 9 am on February 16, 2024 at an apartment complex in Electronic City Phase-2, over garbage disposed of in a common corridor. Each side alleges that the other began the verbal abuse and then the physical violence. Two crimes were registered at the Parappana Agrahara Police Station: Crime No. 107/2024, on the complaint of Swati Sharma, naming Chandrashekhar Gupta and Neha Gupta, and Crime No. 111/2024, on the complaint of Neha Gupta, naming Anant Gopal and Swathi Sharma.
Charge sheets were filed on March 18, 2024 under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 341 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, with Section 325 added in the second case. The accused on both sides then came to the High Court to quash the cases pending before the IX Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru (C.C. Nos. 11462/2024 and 11488/2024). Advocate Ankur Tripathi and Advocate M.N. Madhusudhana appeared for the rival sides, and High Court Government Pleader Rashmi Patel for the State.
Both petitions dismissed
Both criminal petitions were dismissed. The trial court has been left to assess the evidence independently and to decide both cases in accordance with law, without being swayed by the observations in the order.
What the order does and does not do
The order marks the limit of a quashing petition where both sides accuse each other and the medical evidence supports an injury. The High Court did not weigh the competing versions, since that exercise belongs to the trial court, and it left the cross-cases to be tried together on their own evidence.
The reflections on neighbourly conduct are advice and not directions. They do not decide who was in the wrong, and the accused on both sides continue to face trial.
Case Title: Chandrashekhar Gupta alias Chandra Shekhar and Another v. State of Karnataka and Another [Criminal Petition No. 4984 of 2024], with Anant Gopal and Another v. State of Karnataka and Another [Criminal Petition No. 1498 of 2025]
Bench: Justice Suraj Govindaraj, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: October 5, 2026
Appearances: Advocates Ankur Tripathi and M.N. Madhusudhana for the parties; High Court Government Pleader Rashmi Patel for the State