Dismissed

Sri G S Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2022WP/24241/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court heard a writ petition seeking quashing of an FIR and impugned order. Upon counsel submitting that a charge sheet was filed during pendency, making the petition infructuous, the petition was dismissed but with liberty to challenge the charge sheet afresh.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous reserving liberty to challenge the charge sheet by filing a fresh petition.

Sri G S Nagaraj Vs State of Karnataka — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.24241/2015 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI G.S. NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O GANAPATHI, PROPRIETOR SURAKSHA WAREHOUSING CORPORATION OPP: AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE HOSTEL SOWLANGA ROAD SHIVAMOGGA CITY . ...PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SMT. BINDIYA RAO, ADVOCATE FOR SRI K. SUMAN, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA POLICE SHIVAMOGGA-577 201 BY THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE …RESPONDENT

¶11

(BY SRI VENKATESH P. DALAWAI, ADVOCATE)

¶12

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER IN CRIME NO.9/2014 I.E. ANNEXURE-A FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 13(1) (C) R/W SECTION 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT TOGETHER WITH THE APPLICATION OF THE RESPONDENT DATED 14.10.2014 FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL COURT, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT SHIVAMOGGA,

¶13

¶14

CONTAINING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED SPECIAL JUDGE PERMITTING THE RESPONDENT TO INCLUDE THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 120B AND SECTION 407 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE I.E. ANNEXURE-A5 IN SO FAR IT RELATES TO THE PETITIONER I.E., ACCUSED NO.4 AS ARBITRARY ILLEGAL, INJUST AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

O R D E R

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in view of the filing of the charge sheet during the pendency of this writ petition, the petition has become infructuous and seeks for dismissal of the same reserving liberty to challenge the charge sheet by filing the petition afresh.

¶18

Submission is placed on record.

¶19

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed as having

¶20

become infructuous reserving liberty as sought for.

¶21

Sd/JUDGE

¶22

Sri G S Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G S Nagaraj 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

S Swaraj Vs Karnataka State Transport Authority

Sri R S Yathisha Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Rajakumara Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Eastern Stores Vs M/S Versalis

Sri Shivakumar R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R Govindaraju Vs State of Karnataka