Dismissed

Mr Syed Naseeruddin v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC6 Aug 2021CRL.P/3000/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Petitioner sought to quash a charge-sheet under Section 482 Cr.P.C. relating to cheating and criminal breach of trust offences. The High Court dismissed the petition as infructuous, holding that the matter was settled in Lok Adalat on 18.03.2020, rendering the quashing petition untenable.

What did the court decide?

The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the charge-sheet was dismissed as infructuous due to the compromise reached in Lok Adalat.

Mr Syed Naseeruddin Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

-1-

¶2

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

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3000/2019

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. SYED NASEERUDDIN, S/O. SYED MUNEERUDDIN, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, R/AT: NO.85, BELLAHALLI, YELAHANKA, BENGALURU-560 064

¶8

… PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI SHAKEEL AHMED, ADVOCATE (ABSENT) )

¶10

AND

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY BAGALURU POLICE STATION, BAGALURU, BENGALURU-560 064 REP. BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT, BENGALURU.

¶12

MR. S. MURALIDHARAN, S/O. SUNDRAN, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

¶13

-2-

¶14

R/AT: NO.8 AND 9, DEVAKI ILLAM, POTTI GARDEN, S.M. ROAD, JALAHALLI W., BENGALURU-560 015

¶15

(SRI RAHUL RAI K., HCGP FOR R1; SRI N.R. RAGHAVENDRA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE-SHEET IN C.C.NO.864/2014 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 406 AND 420 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) AND J.M.F.C., DEVANAHALLI.

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

None appears for the petitioner either through

¶21

video conferencing or through physically before the

¶22

Court, so also for respondent No.2.

¶23

Respondent No.2 - Muralidharan S/o. Sundran, is

¶24

the complainant in C.C. No.864/2014 which is pending

¶25

-3-

¶26

for trial for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC before the Prl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli against the petitioner, who is accused in Crime No.213/2013 of Bagaluru Police Station.

¶27

Subsequent to registration of the crime by

¶28

Bagaluru Police Station the Investigation Officer took up the case for investigation and after thorough investigation laid the charge-sheet against the accused/petitioner before the Court having jurisdiction. Though the case in Crime No.213/2013 has been registered in the year 2013 there is no progress because of interim order granted by this Court in this matter, which was extended from time to time. Therefore, it is deemed appropriate to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

¶29

-4-

¶30

the case of ASIAN RESURFACING OF ROAD AGENCY PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANOTHER versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION reported in (2018) 16 Supreme Court Cases – 299 to proceed in this matter, wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as extending of granting of stay must be a speaking order – Stay not to operate long in Criminal cases particularly in corruption cases, matter to be decided on day to day basis normally not exceeding 2 - 3 months; stay not to be more than six months and on the expiry thereof, the trial court to resume proceedings without intimation unless expressed by a speaking order extending stay. In this judgment, extensively addressed the issues at paragraphs 28 to 39 and from 52 to 65.

¶31

The same reliance has been placed in Misc. Application No.1577/2020 which was filed in Criminal

¶32

-5-

¶33

Appeal Nos.1375-1376/2013 dated 15.10.2020,

¶34

wherein it is held thus –

¶35

“Whenever stay has been granted by

¶36

any court including the High Court

¶37

automatically expires within a period of six

¶38

months, and unless extension is granted

¶39

for good reason, as per our judgment, within the next six months, the trial Court is, on the expiry of the first period of six months, to set a date for the trial and go ahead with the same.”

¶40

In the meanwhile of dictating the order in this matter by referring those materials and so also the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the learned HCGP for the 1^st respondent-State fairly submitted that the case in CC No.864/2014 was

¶41

-6-

¶42

referred to Lok Adalat and the matter ended in compromise on 18.03.2020. Therefore, there is no pendency of the case in C.C. No.864/2014 before the Principal Civil Judge, JMFC at Devanahalli. This petition is pending before this Court and even though this petition filed by the accused as under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to exercise inherent power vested with this Court for quashing of the charge-sheet in C.C. No.864/2014, when the matter has been settled before the Lok Adalat which was scheduled on 18.03.2020 then there is no consequence to quash the charge-sheet in C.C. No.864/2014 which is pending before the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC at Devanahalli. Consequently this petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶43

Sd/JUDGE

¶44

SBS*

Mr Syed Naseeruddin v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Syed Naseeruddin v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chikkanna H C Vs Sri. H T Channaiah

Smt. Parvathamma Vs State by Mahadevapura

Atul Auto Limtied Vs the State of Karnataka

Raja Naik Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Roshan Pinto Vs State of Karnataka

Lakshminarayana C Vs State of Karnataka by