The High Court of Karnataka rejected a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashment of an FIR. The court noted the petitioner's absence and diligence issues. Since investigation had started, the petition was deemed not deserving of consideration and was dismissed.
Petition and connected IA dismissed.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE:
THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2184/2019
BETWEEN:
SRI B.A.RAMESH, S/O B.M.APPAIAH, AGED 33 YEARS, NO.206, 9TH CROSS, 5TH MAIN, C.J.VENKATADAS ROAD, PADMANABHA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 070.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. M.VINOD KUMAR, ADVOCATE (ABSENT))
AND:
BANGALORE-560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAHUL RAI K., HCGP)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED IN FIR NO.8/2018-19 OF EXCISE POLICE, GANDHINAGAR SUB-DIVISION, PENDING IN THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE V-A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 11, 14, 32, 38A, 43 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
None appears for the petitioner either through video conference or present before the Court physically. But this matter is slated for removal of office objections which has been raised by the office for second time. But, neither the counsel for the petitioner nor petitioner are diligent or vigilant to cure the defects under the curial law to proceed further in this matter.
3
punishable under Sections 11, 14, 32, 38(A) and 43 of Karnataka Excise Act, 1965.
petitioner who is on record has produced the order
sheet maintained by the court below in Crime No.8/2018-19 for the purpose of reference.
against the accused by the Excise Police having jurisdiction. When once the crime has been registered by the police having jurisdiction, the domain is vested
with the Investigating Agency to follow the mandatory provision of Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C., for recording the statement of witnesses and so also for securing material documents relating to the offences in order to file charge sheet against the accused before the Court having jurisdiction. Similarly, Section 167(2)(a) (i) and (ii) relating to an offence which is classified in the schedule
4
of Code of Criminal Procedure and the investigation has
to be completed within a period of 90 days of 60 days.
into motion in Crime No.8/2018 and the same was registered by Excise Police Station. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate to state that this petition does not deserve for consideration for quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against the accused in Crime No.8/2018. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition filed by the petitioner/accused No.2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., is hereby rejected.
Upon dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and
the same shall stand dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
PB/RJ
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying for quashment of FIR deserves consideration pending investigation and record of office objections.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
BA. RAMESH
STATE OF KARNATAKA
K. SOMASHEKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
