Allowed

P R Dhananjaya v. the State

Karnataka HC24 Oct 2016CRL.P/2538/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC filed by three petitioners, the court allowed the petition and quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners for offences under the IPC. The offences were non-compoundable but the dispute between the private parties who were advocates had been amicably settled.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in C.C.No.11898/2013 pending before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore were quashed.

P R Dhananjaya Vs the State — Cheque Dishonour | 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.2538 OF 2015

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

P.R.Dhananjaya, Son of Late P.C.Ramanna, Aged about 36 years,

¶9

Smt. Lakshmidevamma, Wife of Late P.C.Ramanna, Aged about 56 years,

¶10

Both are residents at No.120, Sri. Lakshmi Nilaya, 2^nd A Main Road, Bhyraveshwara Nagara, Laggere, Bangalore – 560 058.

¶11

Smt. Narasamma, Wife of Late P.C.Ramanna, Aged about 48 years, Residing at No.48, 4^th Block, Nandini Layout,

Bangalore – 560 096.

…PETITIONERS

(By Shri Shivaramu H.C., Advocate)

¶16

AND:

¶17

The State by Halasurgate Police (Ulsoor Gate), Represented by the State Public Prosecutor, Dr. Ambedkar Veedhi, Bangalore – 560 0 01.

¶18

H. Nagaraju, Son of Hanumanarasaiah, Aged about 35 years, Resident of Hosahalli Village, Kannahalli Dakhale, Yeshwanthapura Hobli, Bangalore North Taluk, Bangalore – 560 091.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(By Shri K.R.Keshav Murthy, State Public Prosecutor-II for Respondent No.1; Shri B.M.Adiga, Advocate for Respondent No.2)

¶21

¶22

This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.11898/2013 same was pending on the file of the Hon’ble VI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.

¶23

¶24

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

¶25

O R D E R

¶26

The petitioners are said to be arraigned as accused for offences punishable under Sections 420, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’, for brevity). The matter pertains to a private transaction between two persons, who are said to be advocates. With the intervention of the third parties, the matter is amicably settled. However, since the offences alleged are non-compoundable, the present petition is filed seeking that the proceedings be quashed.

¶27

In the light of the law laid down by the apex court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012)10 SCC 303, followed in Narinder Singh vs. State of Punjab (2014)6 SCC 466 , the petition is summarily allowed. The proceedings

¶28

¶29

pending before the VI Additional Chief Metropolitan

¶30

Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.11898/2013 stand quashed.

¶31

Sd/- JUDGE

¶32

P R Dhananjaya v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

P R Dhananjaya v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

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

Smt Shobha Vs the State of Karnataka