Allowed

Ms Sangeetha Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Sept 2021CRL.P/4467/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a criminal petition filed to quash an FIR. The court quashed the proceedings after the complainant submitted that she intended to withdraw the complaint, stating the allegations were false and made at instigation.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; proceedings in Crime No.008/2018 before the Additional CMM Court, Mayohall, Bengaluru City quashed.

Ms Sangeetha Reddy Vs State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.4467/2018

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

MS. SANGEETHA REDDY, W/O KAUSTAV DAS, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT B202, AJMERA ARISTA, 16TH SERVICE ROAD, ANNAIAH REDDY LAYOUT, BANASWADI, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶9

MS.SEETHA, W/O MARUDHAMALAI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT PURVA WINDERMERE, BLOCK D1, FLAT NO.604, PALLIKARANAI, CHENNAI - 600 100.

¶10

... PETITIONERS

¶11

[BY SMT.PRAMILA NESARGI, SR. COUNSEL (VIDEO CONFERENCING)]

¶12

AND

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

¶14

¶15

AVALAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU. REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

MRS.L. RAJESHWARI, W/O LAKSHMANAN REDDYAR, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.133, A BLOCK, JANANI BLOSSOMS, 12TH CROSS ROAD, KRISHNA NAGAR, PUDUCHERRY - 605 008.

¶17

... RESPONDENTS

¶18

[BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1 (PHYSICAL HEARING); SRI.SHASHIDHAR BELAGUMBA, ADV. FOR R2 (PHYSICAL HEARING))

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.008/2018 REGISTERED BEFORE RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU AND ALL FURTHER INVESTINGATION THERETO.

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Respondent No.2 one Smt. L. Rajeshwari, who is served unrepresented has communicated to one Sri. Shashidhar Belagumba, learned counsel to represent her and submit that respondent No.2, who is the complainant is intended to withdraw the complaint and close the case against the parties.

¶24

Heard Smt. Pramila Nesargi, learned Seniro counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. Namitha Mahesh B.G., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. Shashidhar Belaguma, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and perused the material on record.

¶25

The offences alleged are once punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC.

¶26

The narration in the mail of respondent No.2 - complainant reads as follows:

¶27

¶28

"Subject: Request you to represent me on CRLP 4467/2018 and quash the petition.

¶29

Dear Sir,

¶30

I am requesting you to appear on behalf of me in front of Honorable High Court of Karnataka on the above mentioned CRLP 4467/2018. I have also sent you to the Vakalat form by post.

¶31

I had filed the FIR against my daughter Sangeetha Reddy on the advice of my son-inlaw Mr Kaustav Das. Now the matter is pending in the Honourable High Court of Karnataka and proceedings are stayed. Now I intend to withdraw my complainant and I have no objection of quashing the case. I am also willing to come on a Video Conference and appeal in front of the Honourable Justice to quash the petition filed by my daugher Sangeetha Reddy. All the averments made in my complaint are false and I did it only at the instigation of my son-in-law Kaustav Das and his family members."

¶32

¶33

Therefore, in the light of his submission, the

¶34

following:

¶35

ORDER

¶36

i. Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶37

ii. The proceedings pending in Crime No.008/2018 before the X Additional CMM Court, Mayohall, Bengaluru City stands quashed.

¶38

Sd/JUDGE

¶39

SJK

Ms Sangeetha Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ms Sangeetha Reddy v. State of Karnataka

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

Sri M K Rajashekar Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs Mary Thannickal Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Madhavi Vs State of Karnataka

Ravigowda H Vs Ashoka S

Sri Alevoor Yogish Acharya Vs Mr Praveen Acharya

Dr. (Mrs.) Chitralekha. M. R. Vs Mysuru City Corporation