Dismissed

Smt Kanyakumari v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2021CRL.P/516/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, in a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., rejected the petitioners' plea for discharge and quashing of criminal proceedings already pending before the trial court. The court observed that after nine years, the case was pending, including the expiry of investigation timelines, but held that no grounds existed to quash the proceedings or reject the charge sheet.

What did the court decide?

The Criminal Petition seeking discharge and quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was rejected.

Smt Kanyakumari Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

Crl.P.516/2019

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 01^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION No.516 OF 2019

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. KANYAKUMARI W/O G. MADHIVANNAN, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.

¶10

SRI MADHIVANNAN. G. S/O V. G. GAJARAJ, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,

¶11

BOTH ARE R/AT NO.26, SINGH COMPLEX, CHIKKA BETTAHALLI, VIDYARANYAPURA, BENGALURU-560097. ...PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI H.RAMACHANDRA, ADV.)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY POLICE INSPECTOR, MALLESHWARAM POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560003. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI RAHUL RAI. K., HCGP)

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO DISCHARGE THE PETITONERS FOR THE

¶16

Crl.P.516/2019

¶17

¶18

OFFENCES P/U/S 468,471,420,120B R/W 34 OF IPC IN C.C.NO.18839/2013 (MALLESHWARAM CIRME NO.164/2012) ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE LVI A.C.M.M., BANGALORE BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.12.2018 PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SECTION 239 OF THE CR.PC.

¶19

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

¶20

O R D E R

¶21

Sri.H.Ramachandra, learned counsel for the

¶22

petitioners is present before the court physically and seeks some short accommodation to cure the defects raised by the office to proceed further in this matter in accordance with law.

¶23

Though this matter is set down for removal of office objections for the third time, neither the counsel for the petitioners who is record nor the petitioners being arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 are diligent or vigilant to cure the office objections under the curial law to proceed further in this matter.

¶24

Crl.P.516/2019

¶25

¶26

In this petition, the petitioners/accused Nos.1

¶27

and 2 are seeking for quashment of the criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.18839/2013

¶28

arising out of Crime No.164/2012, which is pending before the court having jurisdiction to decide the matter in accordance with law.

¶29

One M.H.Ramakrishnappa, who is the gravamen

¶30

of the incident, has narrated in his complaint and has approached the Malleswaram Police Station, Bengaluru City for registering the case against the accused. Accordingly, the Police having jurisdiction registered the case in Crime No.164/2012 by recording an FIR dated 17.06.2012. Subsequent to registration of the crime, the domain would automatically vest with the investigating agency as provided under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. for recording the statements of the witnesses and so also to secure the material documents as well as to draw the

¶31

Crl.P.516/2019

¶32

¶33

mahazar in the presence of the panch witnesses to file charge sheet.

¶34

It is relevant to refer to Section 167(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of Cr.P.C. relating to the offence classified in the schedule made in the Code of Criminal Procedure that the investigation be completed within a period of 90 days or 60 days. However, in this matter, subsequent to registration of the crime by the Malleswaram Police Station in the year 2012, thereafter the Investigating Officer has thoroughly investigated the matter and laid the charge sheet against the accused before the court having jurisdiction in the year 2013. Even taking into consideration the registration of the crime is of the year 2012, it is almost after completion of 9 years, but there is no progress relating to the charge sheeted case by the Police having jurisdiction to expedite the matter or to end the criminal prosecution against the accused in accordance with law.

¶35

Crl.P.516/2019

¶36

¶37

So far as the crimes are concerned, the case in C.C.No.18839/2013 is initiated where, by the Investigating Officer has laid the charge sheet against the accused in the year 2013 and even taking into consideration the year of filing of the charge sheet, it is completion of eight years, but there is no ending of the criminal prosecution against the accused. However it requires to follow the mandatory provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure as well as the relevant provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for ending the Criminal prosecution.

¶38

Even though the trial court has to proceed in accordance with law by recording the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and whereby the prosecution has to let in evidence and also marking of documents, which were secured by the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation, but the domain always vested with the trial court to appreciate the evidence either oral

¶39

Crl.P.516/2019

¶40

¶41

or documentary, in accordance with law for arrival of the conclusion of the prosecution case.

¶42

Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal

¶43

Procedure, there shall be three limbs that the court should follow and take into consideration. Firstly, nothing in the Code of Criminal Procedure shall be deemed to limit or affect the inherent powers of the High Court to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code. The second limbs of the said provision is to prevent the abuse of process of law and third limbs of the said provision is otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this matter and keeping in view the

¶44

scope and object of Section 482 of Cr.P.C., the complainant who is the gravamen of the incident, similarly the accused,, who is also a gravamen of the accusation narrated in detail in the charge sheet laid by the Investigating Officer against the accused before the

¶45

Crl.P.516/2019

¶46

¶47

court of law. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this matter, there cannot be anything arisen in this matter to dwell upon the charges alleged in the FIR or in the material which is collected by the Investigating Officer. Consequently, the petition deserves to be rejected.

¶48

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:

¶49

O R D E R

¶50

The petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C is hereby rejected.

¶51

Upon dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2019 does not survive for consideration and the same stands

¶52

dismissed.

¶53

Sd/JUDGE

¶54

KNM/-

Smt Kanyakumari v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Kanyakumari 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Farooq Ahmed Vs State by Range Forest Officer

Mr Don Jayasingh Vs State of Karnataka

Srinivasa Vs State of Karnataka

Krishnakanth K Vs State by White Field Police

Sri Ujval Reddy K Vs State by Kengeri Police

Sri. Keshava @ Keshava Rajanna B Vs the State by Pulakeshinagar Police