Dismissed

Smt Shobha v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC24 Oct 2016CRL.P/1207/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a criminal petition seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 482 CrPC. The petitioner, accused of corruption and cheating related to bus chassis number modification, argued for quashing due to false implication and lack of conviction chances. The court held the case serious and refused interference.

What did the court decide?

The petition to quash proceedings in respect of the petitioner was rejected.

Smt Shobha Vs the State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1207 OF 2016

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Smt. Shobha, Wife of Mohan Kumar, Aged about 29 years, Supervisor, Karnataka State Road Transport Company, Hassan Depot, Residing at Udayagiri Extension, Hassan – 560 037.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(By Shri Srinivas C.H., Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The State of Karnataka,

¶13

By Lokayuktha Police Station, Hassan – 573 201.

¶14

The President,

¶15

Human Rights and Non

¶16

¶17

Corruption Committee, Hassan – 560 037.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(By Shri B.S.Prasad, Advocate for Respondent No.1; Shri Pratheep K.C., Advocate for Respondent No.2)

¶20

¶21

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the FIR made against the petitioner in Crime No.1/2015 registered by the respondent no.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 13(1)(C)(D) and 13(2) of P.C.Act, 1988 and Sections 465, 420 read with 34 of IPC arraying her as accused no.3 in the alleged crime which is pending before the Hon’ble District Sessions Judge, Hassan.

¶22

This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day, the court made the following:

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The learned counsel for the petitioner remains absent. A request is made for an adjournment. However, the learned counsel for the respondent would point out that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature.

¶25

The petitioner was a Supervisor with the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, Hassan Depot and it was found that the petitioner as a Supervisor, had aided and abetted

¶26

¶27

the mechanic as well as a head of the Unit to disfigure the chassis number on the buses of which she was in charge and had sold the buses as scrap. This was latently discovered and the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused for offences punishable under Section 13(1)(C) and (D) and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Sections 465 and 420 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶28

The petitioner is before this court claiming that she has been falsely implicated and that there are documents in her possession which if perused, would demonstrate her innocence and that the entire criminal case against her is a waste of judicial time, as the chances of conviction are bleak and no useful purpose would be served in the criminal prosecution and therefore seeks that the proceedings be quashed insofar as she is concerned.

¶29

If the petitioner is confident of the defence that she may set up, it may be tested at the trial. There is no warrant for

¶30

¶31

this court to interfere in a matter which appears to be of a

¶32

serious nature. Hence, the petition is rejected.

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

JUDGE

¶35

Smt Shobha v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shobha v. the State of Karnataka

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

Hemalatha Vs State of Karnataka by

Dr. Jayaram P.H Vs Arjuna

Sri M Lakshman Vs Sri Balaji Developers and Builders

Smt. Neelam Manmohan Attavar Vs Sri. Manmohan Attavar

Sri. Mirza Turabali Baig Vs Miss B.N. Anitha

P R Dhananjaya Vs the State