Dismissed

Virupakshi @ Virupakshi S/O Sharanappa v. the State of Karnataka through Sadar Bazar Police

Karnataka HC15 Feb 2013CRL.P/15050/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 CrPC to quash FIR and chargesheet under IPC Sections 366(A) and 376. Court held that petitioner had alternative remedy via trial court discharge application which was rejected. Petition rejected. Trial directed to be expedited.

What did the court decide?

Petition rejected; trial directed to be expedited.

Virupakshi @ Virupakshi S/O Sharanappa Vs the State of… — Cheque Dishonour | Karnataka HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT GULBARGA

¶3

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.15050/2013

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

Virupakshigouda @ Prakashgouda, S/o: Sharanappa, Age: 40 Years, Occ: Business, R/o: Nugaldani Villge, Taluk: Manvi, District: Raichur. … PETITIONER

¶9

(By Shri. Veeresh.B.Patil, Advocate )

¶10

AND:

¶11

The State of Karnataka Through Sadar Bazar police at Raichur. Represented by State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka, Circuit Bench, Gulbarga.

¶12

… RESPONDENT

¶13

(By Shri Sanjay.A.Patil, Additional State Public Prosecutor)

¶14

¶15

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this Court may be pleased to quash the FIR and Chargesheet registered by the respondent police in Crime No.25/2011 pending on the file of JMFC at Raichur in C.C.No.1105/2011.

¶16

This petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court made the following:

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

The petitioner had approached this court earlier seeking discharge, the same has rejected on the ground that the petitioner has an alternative remedy. The petitioner having approached the trial court, it has rejected the prayer for discharge by a detailed order. The allegations against the petitioner are in respect of offences punishable under Sections 366(A) and 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and several other provisions including the provisions of the prevention of Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act and that the victim was said to be 13 years old. Even if there is any controversy about the age she would still be a minor girl even if there was a variance in the age by several years, she would still be a minor.

¶19

¶20

Hence, the petitioner who is enlarged on bail would have to establish certainly have the defence available to him and merely on the strength of the defence that is sought to be urged would not be a ground for discharge, the petitioner would have to face the trial. Therefore, there is no error to be found in the reasoning of the court below, accordingly the petition is rejected. However, since the petitioner would vehemently contend his innocence and is also aggrieved by the inordinate delay in the proceedings before the trial court, the trial court is directed to expedite the trial in the interest of justice.

¶21

Sd/JUDGE

¶22

msr

Virupakshi @ Virupakshi S/O Sharanappa v. the State of Karnataka through Sadar Bazar Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Virupakshi @ Virupakshi S/O Sharanappa v. the State of Karnataka through Sadar Bazar Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhaskar S/O Peerappa Vs the State through Dhannur Police Station

Nagesh S/O Yasavant Gayakwad and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka

Mainu @ Mainuddin S/O Mohd. Usman Guttedar Vs the State through Grameen Ps Gulbarga

Vilas S/O Baburao More Vs the State through Hulsoor

Rajashekhar S/O Mallanna Handroli Vs the State of Karnataka through Ratakal

M.D. Sattar S/O Md. Nissar Ahmed Vs State of Karnataka through Its and Ors.