Disposed

Sri Jagadish Mirle v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Dec 2016CRL.P/4162/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an instant criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash charge sheet filed against the petitioner, the Single Judge held that since the complaint was at the nascent stage, the petitioner could seek discharge on the very grounds urged before this Court and thus disposed of the petition without prejudice to his case.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of without prejudice to the case of the petitioner as discharge could be sought in the Court below.

Sri Jagadish Mirle Vs the State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2016)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4162 OF 2016

¶6

Between:

¶7

Sri Jagadish Mirle S/o late Keshva Murthy, Aged about 39 years, R/at Flat No. 202, A Block, G.R. Pinacle Apartments, Sarakki Gate, Bangalore - 560 055.

¶8

... Petitioner

¶9

(By Shri: Manjunath G Kandekar, Advocate)

¶10

And:

¶11

The State of Karnataka By Subramanyapura Police Station, Bangalore - 560 061.

¶12

Smt. Reshma Manjunath W/o Manjunath, Aged about 34 years, R/at MIG, 1st Stage, KHB Colony, 1st Main, 1st Cross, Basaweshwarnagar, Bangalore - 560 079.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

(By Shri: Chetan Desai, High Ciourt Government Pleader for R1)

¶15

¶16

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C praying to quash the charge sheet filed against the petitioner by the respondent No.1 police in C.C.No.24129/2015 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 323,504,506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code on the file of II A.C.M.M., Bangalore in Cr. No.494/2015.

¶17

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:-

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner.

¶20

The petitioner is arrayed as accused No.5. It is the

¶21

petitioner’s case that there is a false case foisted against the petitioner and his family, only on account of earlier case having been filed by accused No.1 who is a far relative of the present petitioner and only on retaliation, the present complaint is filed on vague allegations on the petitioner who is no way concerned, that the petitioner and his family had trespassed her house, abused and assaulted and therefore, the petitioner seeks that the proceedings be quashed.

¶22

Since the complaint before the Court below is at

¶23

nascent stage, there is ample opportunity for the petitioner to seek

¶24

¶25

discharge on the very grounds that are urged in the present petition, as it is the case of petitioner that he has no remote connection even with the complainant and her affairs and therefore, would be entitled to a discharge if he could convince the Court below.

¶26

Accordingly, without prejudice to the case of petitioner, the

¶27

petition is disposed of.

¶28

Sd/JUDGE

¶29

��

Sri Jagadish Mirle v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Jagadish Mirle v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohammed Vs Stateof Karnataka

Sri R Sekar Vs State of Karnataka

U. Varadaraya Nayak Vs State of Karnataka

Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs Mr H Rajappa

Reshma Baig Vs M/S. A1-TAIYABA Tours and Travels

Mr Ravi Kumar B Vs Mr Bikaram G