The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a writ petition seeking quashing of an IPC 406 and 420 FIR filed by the State. The court termed the writ petition infructuous since the police had already filed a closure report post-investigation.
The writ petition was disposed of as having become infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.13433/2018
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
WRIT PETITION No.13433/2018(GM-RES)
BETWEEN :
DR.VEERA BHUSHAN R. GONI NO.387/1, GROUND FLOOR JUDGES COLONY BELOW NILGIRIS, RT NAGAR BANGALORE – 560 032 … PETITIONER
(BY SMT.ARCHANA MURTHY P., ADVOCATE)
AND :
(BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R1; SRI.VIJAYA KUMAR V., ADV. FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE
W.P.No.13433/2018
2
COMPLAINT REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR AN OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 406 AND 420 OF I.P.C., IN CRIME NO.0064/2018, DATED 16.03.2018, PENDING BEFORE THE 4TH ADDL.C.M.M. COURT, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE VIDE ANNEXURE – D.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent No.1. It is submitted that after investigation in the impugned complaint, respondent No.1 has filed ‘C’ report on 14.01.2019. Therefore the petition has become infructuous.
Recording the submission, the petition is disposed of as having become infructuous.
Sd/JUDGE
KG
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a writ petition praying to quash an FIR should be dismissed as infructuous because a CIPC report has already been filed by the police after investigation.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
nullReferred
null
1 provisions across 1 enactments
DR.VEERA BHUSHAN R. GONI
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
SENTHIL KUMAR K
K.S. MUDAGAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
