Dismissed

Smt v. Kamalamma v State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Aug 2021CRL.P/2969/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash private complaint proceedings, ruling that the petition is premature as the Magistrate had not taken cognizance, recorded statements, or issued process.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt v Kamalamma Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2969 of 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SMT. V. KAMALAMMA, W/O. LATE C.K. VELLAIYAN, AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.43, 2^ND MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU – 560 018.

¶9

SMT. JAMUNA, W/O. LATE R. VENUGOPAL, D/O. LATE C.K. VELLIYAN AGED 52 YEARS (ACTUAL 61 YEARS), RESIDING AT No.43, 2^ND MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU – 560 018.

¶10

SRI VINOD KUMAR J., S/O. LATE R. VENUGOPAL, AGED 35 YEARS (VINOD 38 YEARS), RESIDING AT No.43, 2^ND MAIN, 4^TH CROSS, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU – 560 018.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SMT. SANDHYA U. PRABHU, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH CHAMARAJPET POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,

¶15

¶16

HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶17

SMT. SARASWATHI, D/O. LATE C.K. VELLIYAN, RESIDING AT No.43, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 4^TH CROSS, CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU – 560 018.

¶18

SMT. SAROJA, W/O. LAKSHMANAN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT No.305/3, ANJANEYA NILAYA, 3^RD FLOOR, RAGHAVENDRA TEMPLE ROAD, SEETHAPATHI AGRAHARA ROAD, NEAR RAYANNA CIRCLE, THARAGUPET, BENGALURU – 560 002.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP for R-1 SRI PRATEEK G., ADVOCATE for R-2 & R-3)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN PCR No.4531/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 468 AND 471 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE, VIDE ANNEXURE-B.

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION through video conferencing THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by petitioner Nos.1 to 3 who are accused Nos.3, 1 and 2 respectively, in PCR No.4531/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶25

¶26

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 as also learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶27

The case of the petitioners is that respondent Nos.2 and 3, the complainants, have filed a private complaint before the XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, in PCR No.4531/2021 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. for the offences punishable under Sections 468, 471, 420 read with 34 of IPC. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court for quashing the same on the ground that petitioner No.1 is the mother and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the sister and brother of the complainants. They have filed a false complaint against them.

¶28

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 submits that the present petition is premature as the complaint came to be filed before the Magistrate and it was assigned PCR number. The learned Magistrate has not yet taken any cognizance by recording statement of any witnesses

¶29

¶30

and has not passed any order summoning the petitioners. The complaint is just kept pending by assigning PCR number. Learned counsel further contended that the petition is premature for hearing. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

¶31

Upon hearing the arguments and on perusal of Annexure-A, the copy of the private complaint filed by respondent Nos.2 and 3 which is numbered as PCR No.4531/2021, the order sheet reveals that after filing of the complaint, the learned Magistrate has directed the office to register the PCR and put-up by 10.03.2021. Thereafter, nothing has happened. Learned Magistrate has neither taken the sworn statement of the complainants or statements of any other witnesses in order to take cognizance and to proceed against the accused to issue process under Section 204 of Cr.P.C. The complaint filed is kept pending and nothing has happened before the learned Magistrate. The complaint itself is not yet accepted by learned Magistrate. Such being the case, it is premature

¶32

¶33

to consider the petition filed for quashing the criminal proceedings. Therefore, I am of the view that the petition deserves to be dismissed as premature to quash the complaint.

¶34

Accordingly, the criminal petition is dismissed.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Smt v. Kamalamma v State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt v. Kamalamma v State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Lion V.G. Shetty (Venudhara G Shetty) Vs the State of Karnataka

Umashankar N Vs Smt. Ambika H K

Syed Navaz Vs State of Karnataka

Sri.M.Ramakrishna Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Srikanta v Vs State of Karnataka

Dr J Uday Vs the Inspector of Police