Dismissed

K v. Ashraff Hussain v State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Aug 2021CRL.P/8384/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash FIR as infructuous because the investigation had concluded with a two-year delay, making further quashing unnecessary, while reserving liberty to proceed legally.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous due to completion of investigation; liberty reserved to proceed in accordance with law upon main petition disposal.

K v Ashraff Hussain Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

: 1 :

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8384 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

K.V. Ashraff Hussain S/o. Late Haji Veera Aged 74 years Managing Director KAP India Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., R/at Bidanagere, Ward No.1 Kunigal Town Raja Bricks and Tiles Industries Raja Nagara Oorukere Tumkur – 572 106.

¶9

... Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri. Ram Mohan .A - Advocate)

¶11

AND

¶12

State of Karnataka Rep. by Kunigal Police Station Kunigal Tumkur District - 572130 Rep. by SPP High Court of Karnataka Bangalore – 560 001.

¶13

Sri. Mohammed Iqbal Sheriff S/o. Late Mohammed Yusuf Aged about 46 years R/at 6^th Cross Opp. Shanimahathma Temple

¶14

: 2 :

¶15

Maddur Road Kunigal Town - 572130.

¶16

Shafiq Hussain S/o. Late Mohammed Hussain Aged 48 years R/at Kannath Padikkal House Valapad, Chantha Kadavu ValapadNattka, Valapad Post Thrissur, Kerala State – 680567.

¶17

... Respondents

¶18

(By Sri. Rahul Rai .K – HCGP for R-1)

¶19

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to quash the FIR in respect of petitioners in Crime No.204/2019 dated 31.07.2019 in PCR No.4/2019 under Sections 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC pending before the Sr. Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, Tumkur District and etc,.

¶20

This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, this day, the court made the following:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This petition is filed by the petitioner/accused seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him in Crime No.204/2019 arising out of PCR No.04/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC pending before the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Kunigal, Tumkur District.

¶23

: 3 :

¶24

Heard Sri Ram Mohan. A., learned counsel for the petitioner who is present before the court physically inclusive of learned HCGP for respondent - State.

¶25

Respondent No.2 – Mohammed Iqbal Sheriff who is arraigned as complainant initiated the criminal proceedings against the accused in PCR No.4/2019 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 506 r/w 34 of IPC. Subsequent to referring the case to the Kunigal Police, the case in Crime No.204/2019 was registered by recording the FIR on 31.07.2019.

¶26

However, it is deemed appropriate to state that when once the FIR has been recorded, it is the domain vested with the Investigating Agency to proceed for investigation by following the requisite conditions under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. The Investigating Agency shall record the statement of witnesses and so also 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) relating to the offences maintained in the schedule in the classification that the

¶27

: 4 :

¶28

Investigating Officer has to lay the charge-sheet under the relevant provisions within 90 days or 60 days as regards the offences lugged against the accused in the FIR.

¶29

But in the instant case, the case in Crime No.204/2019 came to be registered by the Kunigal Police by recording the FIR and it is almost completion of around two years. Therefore, this petition has become infructuous keeping in view the specific provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed as infructuous.

¶30

However, keeping in view the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and so also, the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, liberty is reserved to the petitioner/accused to proceed in accordance with law.

¶31

Consequence upon disposal of the main petition, I.A.1/2019 does not survive for consideration, accordingly stands disposed of.

¶32

DKB

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

K v. Ashraff Hussain v State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K v. Ashraff Hussain 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. 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

Sri. Siddaramaiah Vs State of Karnataka by

Shivanand Ningappa Karavinkopp Vs the State of Karnataka