Dismissed

Sri. Siddaramaiah v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2021CRL.P/7430/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court Bench dismissed a Criminal Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of criminal proceedings. The Court held that due to delay and lack of investigation progress after nearly three years, the petition held no substance and was dismissed as infructuous.

What did the court decide?

Petition was dismissed as infructuous due to lack of substance and delay in investigation.

Sri. Siddaramaiah Vs State of Karnataka by — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7430/2019

¶6

BETWEEN :

¶7

SRI. SIDDARAMAIAH S/O. LATE SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT GUNDAPPANAYAKANAHALLI, SASULU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, PIN CODE-561203. ...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY C.D., ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HOSAHALLI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶11

SRI. SANTOSH KUMAR B.R. S/O LATE RAMA MURTHY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.244, 10^TH MAIN ROAD, NEAR MTB SCHOOL, MAHADEVAPURA, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, PIN CODE-560048.

¶12

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI.K., H.C.G.P. FOR R-1) *****

¶13

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CR.NO.4/2019 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT DODDABALLAPURA.

¶15

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

¶16

ORDER

¶17

Sri Narasimha Murthy C.D., learned counsel for the petitioner, who is present before the Court physically seeks some short accommodation for removal of the office objections which have been raised.

¶18

Sri Rahul Rai K., learned High Court Government Pleader for the first respondent - State is present before the Court physically.

¶19

In this matter, the petitioner has sought for quashment of the initiation of the criminal proceedings against the accused in Crime No.4/2019, pending on the file of the learned Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Doddaballapura, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 199, 203, 420, 463, 464, 474 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860, was referred to the

¶20

¶21

court having jurisdiction as defined under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC., for investigation and report.

¶22

When once FIR has been recorded by the police having jurisdictional under Section 154 of the Cr.PC.,, subsequently, the domain is vested with the investigating agency to proceed for investigation by following the requisite conditions under Section 173(2) of Cr.PC.,. The investigating agency shall record the statement of the witnesses and so also to secure the material documents and draw the mahazar in the presence of panch witnesses. Similarly, the investigating agency should follow the requisite conditions under Section 167(2)(a)(i) and (ii) of Cr.P.C which relates to the offences as stated in the classification of the schedule in the Code of Criminal Procedure that the investigating agency shall proceed for investigation of the entire case and lay the charge sheet within a stipulated period of 60 days or 90 days as regards the offences lugged against the accused in the FIR.

¶23

But in the instant case, the respondent – police has registered a case in Crime No.4/2019 by recording the FIR on 21.2.2019. Even taking into consideration the year

¶24

¶25

of crime, it is almost all completion of three years but there is no progress in the case and so also one cannot anticipate whether the investigating agency laying the charge sheet as contemplated under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. for sufficiency of evidence in terms of the charge sheet. Therefore, keeping in view the relevant provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, this petition does not hold any substance to proceed any further seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings in Crime No.4/2019.

¶26

Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶27

Sd/JUDGE

¶28

PL*

Sri. Siddaramaiah v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Siddaramaiah v. State of Karnataka by

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. J. Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Bahubali M B Vs State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Mailuswamy

Sri N Ramakrishna Bhat Vs the State of Karnataka

K v Ashraff Hussain Vs State of Karnataka

Shivanand Ningappa Karavinkopp Vs the State of Karnataka