Dismissed

Mohammed Ansari v. Station House Officer

Karnataka HC6 Sept 2021CRL.P/1149/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka rejected a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings. The court observed a lack of petitioner diligence due to procedural delays and noted the prosecution was legitimate as initiated by a competent authority following mandatory Cr.P.C. provisions.

What did the court decide?

Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is rejected; Interim Application dismissed.

Mohammed Ansari Vs Station House Officer — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1149 OF 2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Mohammed Ansari Aged 35 years S/o P.Ismail Prop. H.K. Agro Impex Sy.No.173-P2(P) Koyyur Village Belthangady – 574 214 Dakshina Kannada District.

¶8

.. Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri. B.R. Satenahalli – Advocate)

¶10

AND

¶11

Station House Officer Belthangadi Police Station Dakshina Kannada District Rep. by the State Public Prosecutor High Court Buildings Bengaluru – 560 001.

¶12

..Respondent

¶13

(By Sri. Rahul Rai .K – HCGP)

¶14

This Criminal Petition filed Under Section, 482 of Cr.P.C praying to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in C.C.No.3294/2018 on the file of Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Belthangady for offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 9, 22, 23, C(1)(E) & G and 24(1)E r/w 21(1) of the MMDR Act.

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

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

¶17

O R D E R

¶18

None appear for the petitioner either physically or through video conferencing. But the matter is slated for removal of office objections for the fourth time. Neither the counsel for the petitioner who is on record nor the petitioner who is arraigned as accused is diligent or vigilant to cure the defects under the Curial Law to proceed further in this matter.

¶19

Learned HCGP for the State in this matter who is present before court physically submits by referring to Annexure-“A” whereby the Geologist of Mines and Geology Department, Mangaluru had initiated criminal prosecution against the accused for offences punishable under the MMDR Act, 1957 and so also for offences under the KMMC Rules, 1994 which is reflected in paragraph 9 of the private complaint initiated by the complainant being a competent authority under the relevant provisions of the Cr.P.C. as well as for offences under the MMDR Act, 1957

¶20

and so also for offences under the KMMC Rules, 1994.

¶21

: 3 :

¶22

Paragraph 6 of the private complaint initiated by the competent authority reveals that vehicles bearing Nos.

¶23

KA-14-A-4788 / Lorry,

¶24

KA-21-B-5648 / Lorry,

¶25

TN-58-W-0713 / Tractor,

¶26

L& T Komastu PC-91 / Hitachi and

¶27

Sany Sy 80 C-9S / Hitachi

¶28

were the vehicles which have been used by accused persons. Those vehicles have been seized by the competent authority and whereby initiation of criminal prosecution against the accused in C.C.No.3294/2018. But the said case is pending before the Court of the Prl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Belthangady in D.K., Mangaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 4(1), 9, 22, 23, C(1)(E) and (G) and 24(1)(E) of the MMDR Act. But the petitioner Mohammed Ansari S/o. P. Ismail who is arraigned as accused, is alleged to have committed offences as narrated in the private complaint initiated by the competent authority. The said private complaint has been initiated by the Geologist of Mines and Geology Department, Mangaluru vide Annexure-“A”. Hence, in all, seven

¶29

: 4 :

¶30

persons were arraigned as accused including the present petitioner / accused for commission of the alleged offences.

¶31

However, the matter is under process for trial of the case against the accused in C.C.No.3294/2018. But criminal prosecution has been initiated by the complainant who is a competent authority and criminal law was set into motion against the accused by following the mandatory provisions of the Cr.P.C. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate to state that in this matter, it does not require for dwelling in detail about the factum of the charges alleged against the accused in the private complaint whereby the criminal prosecution has been launched by the competent authority.

¶32

Therefore, it is said that there is no substance in this matter for intervention as under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashment of the case in C.C.No.3294/2018. Consequently, the petition deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶33

: 5 :

¶34

ORDER

¶35

The petition filed by the petitioner / accused under

¶36

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby rejected.

¶37

Upon disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2019 is dismissed as the same does not survive for consideration.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

Mohammed Ansari v. Station House Officer

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohammed Ansari v. Station House Officer

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

Dr. Nethravathi.v Vs State by White Field Police Station

Sri Prabhakar Vs the State

Sri Raghavendra Sait Vs State by Krishnaraja Police

Smt Tajunnisa Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Anand Gupta Vs State of Karnataka

Somanna K a Vs State of Karnataka