Petitioner, a Village Accountant, challenged continuation of criminal proceedings for cheque-related and forgery offences after the refusal of sanction for prosecution. The court quashed proceedings against her citing lack of required sanction.
Proceedings in C.C. No.492/2017 insofar as the petitioner is concerned are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRL.P.No.6076 of 2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6076 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SMT.USHA B.S., W/O NATARAJA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT HITTALE HEBBAGILU VILLAGE AND POST, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT – 571 107. NOW R/AT 1ST BLOCK, BYCHANAHALLY, KUSHALNAGAR HOBLI, SOMAWARAPETE TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 234.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PRASANNA D.P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
CRL.P.No.6076 of 2018
2
KIRUNDADU VILLAGE, NAPOKLU HOBLI, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT – 571 221.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI K.S. BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.492/2017 PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MADIKERI FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 419, 420, 465, 468 AND 471 R/W 34 OF IPC OF THE 1ST RESPONDENT NAPOKLU POLICE IN THEIR CR.NO.111/2013 AS PER ANNEXURE – A IN RESPECT TO PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
CRL.P.No.6076 of 2018
3
CRL.P.No.6076 of 2018
4
CRL.P.No.6076 of 2018
5
Sd/JUDGE
SBS*
2 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings should be quashed against the petitioner after the refusal of sanction for prosecution.
Whether the allegations amount to exercise of official duties requiring sanction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of H.P. vs. Nishanth SarenReferred¶27
State of Himachala Pradesh vs. Nishanth Saren (2010)14 SCC 527 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
SMT.USHA B.S.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
C.B.DEVAIAH
SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
