Dismissed

M.P. Raju v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Dec 2021CRL.P/6372/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two criminal petitions under Section 482 CrPC filed for quashing of proceedings were finally dismissed by the High Court of Karnataka due to the petitioners' consistent failure to appear or prosecute the matters after multiple adjournments and a final warning.

What did the court decide?

Petitions dismissed for non-prosecution due to the absence of the petitioners despite multiple listings and warnings.

M.P. Raju Vs the State of Karnataka — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER,2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6372 OF 2015

¶7

CONNECTED WITH

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7548 OF 2015

¶9

IN CRL.P.NO.6372/2015:

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

M.P. RAJU S/O. LATE M.B. PARAMESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶12

M.P. NIRANJAN S/O. LATE M.B. PARAMESHWARAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, (BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF MAGANURU VILLAGE, MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. AMRUTH CHOWDHARY S., ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MALAVALLI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING HIGH COURT, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶17

¶18

¶19

M.B. JAYADEVAPPA AGED 52 YEARS MAGNOOR VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.

¶20

...RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. V.S. NARAYANA, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.4/2015 AND C.C. NO.62/2015 ON THE FILE OF SR. C.J. AND J.M.F.C. MALAVALLI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 114 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE THE CJM, MALAVALLI AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.

¶23

IN CRL.P.NO.7548/2015:

¶24

BETWEEN:

¶25

M. ANAND S/O. MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.175, GOWRISHANKARANAGARA MYSORE 570 005.

¶26

L. NAGERAJE URS, S/O. M. LINGARAJE URS AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R/AT IN SUMERU NILAYA BEHIND ADARSHA CONVENT NES EXTENTION, MALAVALLI TOWN, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.

¶27

PRADEEP, S/O. B. BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NANJADEVAPURA VILLAGE CHAMARAJANAGAR - 571 313.

¶28

¶29

SUBBAKRISHNA S/O. M.V. BILIGIRAYA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT PETEGANGABRRDI MALAVALLI TOWN MANDYA DISTRICT-571 430 5. M.B. GURUKUMAR S/O. LATE S. BALARAM AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.849, 2^ND CROSS, 2^ND STAGE, BOGADI, MYSORE-560 026. 6. RAGHUNANDAN, S/O. PAPPANNA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/AT DOOR NO.324, 6^TH CROSS, 2^ND STAGE BOGDI, MYSORE-560 026. …PETITIONERS

¶30

(BY SRI. AMRUTH CHOWDHARY S., ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

¶31

AND:

¶32

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MALAVALLI POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING HIGH COURT BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. M.B. JAYADEVAPPA AGED 52 YEARS MAGNOOR VILLAGE MALAVALLI TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 430.

¶33

...RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. V.S. NARAYANA, ADVOATE FOR R2)

¶35

¶36

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.4/2015 AND C.C. NO.62/2015 ON THE FILE OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., MALAVALLI FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 463, 464, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420, 114 OF IPC, PENDING BEFORE THE CJM, MALAVALLI AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.

¶37

THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

O R D E R

¶39

The petitioners in this petition, calling in question the proceedings in CC No.62/2015, pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Malavalli, for offences punishable under Sections 463, 364, 365, 367, 368, 471, 420, 114 of IPC.

¶40

Heard Sri. V.S. Narayana, learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioner remained continuously absent. The matter was listed on 04.01.2021. This court passed the following order :

¶42

"None appears for the petitioners either physically or through video conferencing. But learned HCGP for respondent No.1 is present.

¶43

¶44

Hence, list these matters after two weeks for removal of office objections raised in Crl.P.No.6372/2015"

¶45

The matter was again listed on 15.12.2021. This

¶46

court inducing the fact that the petitioners are again absent, heard the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

¶47

The matter is again listed on 31.08.2021, on which date, the petitioners appeared and certain additional documents with regard to the pending suit between the parties, taken note of it. Again on 02.09.2021, the learned senior counsel who represented the petitioner, addressed his arguments and the matter was posted for further hearing on 21.09.2021

¶48

From that date, the matter is listed on five occasions and there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners.

¶49

This court by an order dated 09.12.2021, passed the following order :

¶50

¶51

"The matters were heard on 02.09.2021 and were directed to be listed on 21.09.2021. On 21.09.2021, the matters were adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the petitioners to 11.11.2021. It was again adjourned at the request of the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 to 25.11.2021. There is no representation on behalf of petitioners on 25.11.2021. Again on 02.12.2021, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioners. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioners both in the forenoon and in the afternoon.

¶52

As a last chance, awaiting representation of the petitioners in the cases at hand, list these matters on 14.12.2021.

¶53

In the event, learned counsel for the petitioners do not represent the matters, the matters would be dismissed for non-prosecution."

¶54

In the light of the afore narrated orders and

¶55

order dated 09.12.2021, petitions are dismissed for its non prosecution.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

snc

M.P. Raju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.P. Raju v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Karnataka Police Employees House Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Sachin N G Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Lokayukta Police Vs State Rep. by Secretary

Basavaraj. H. Hangodimutt Vs State of Karnataka

Praveen Tejraj Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S Shivaganga Built Tech Vs the State of Karnataka