Dismissed

Sri. a. Dinakar Rai v. State by Bajape Police Station

Karnataka HC9 Nov 2023CRL.P/3061/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal petition filed to quash proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C. regarding offences under IPC Sections 323, 504, 506, and 354. The court held that the petition was not maintainable as a similar petition had been previously dismissed, with liberty given to seek discharge in the trial court.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was dismissed as not maintainable.

Sri. a. Dinakar Rai Vs State by Bajape Police… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

NC: 2023:KHC:40268 CRL.P No. 3061 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3061 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. A DINAKAR RAI, S/O A. SHEENAPPA RAI, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT SABALOOR HOUSE, KOILA POST AND VILLAGE, PUTTUR TALUK, D.K.DISTRICT - 574 241.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. K. THARANATH SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

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

¶14

SMT. PUSHPA, W/O MANJUNATHA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOWDOOR, KOLAMBE VILLAGE, MANGALURU TALUK, MANGALURU CITY, D.K.DISTRICT - 574 142.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. RAJASHEKAR. S, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC:40268 CRL.P No. 3061 of 2023

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.3068/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF COURT OF J.M.F.C II COURT AT MANGALURU D.K., DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 504, 506, 354 OF IPC.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition is filed challenging the prosecution launched against the petitioner in CC.No.3068/2016 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 and 354 of IPC pending trial before the JMFC, (II Court), Mangalore.

¶22

When the petition was listed for admission, it was brought to the notice of the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an earlier petition was filed in Crl.P.No.4315/2018 challenging the prosecution initiated against him in CC.No.3068/2016 and that this Court had passed the following order:

¶23

"5. The solitary ground urged before this Court is that the petitioner is innocent and the instant complaint is filed as a counterblast to his complaint against one Chandrahasa Ameen. The offences alleged referred to hereinabove, require a trial and in my

¶24

¶25

NC: 2023:KHC:40268 CRL.P No. 3061 of 2023

¶26

considered law, no ground is made out to interfere at this stage exercising powers under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶27

6. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed."

¶28

He submits that an application for discharge is now

¶29

filed before the trial Court which is pending consideration. He further contends that, respondent No.2 had filed an another complaint against the petitioner by a person name Gangadhar who is respondent No.2 in Crl.P.3242/2023. He also urged other contentions and claimed that it was a change circumstance, which compelled the petitioner to file the present petition.

¶30

When this Court had applied its mind and had held a Crl.P.No.4315/2018 that there is no ground to urge to exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and had dismissed the petition reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek discharge and the petitioner having sought for discharge, cannot maintain another criminal petition before this Court on the presume ground that a change in the circumstance. If there is any change in the circumstance, he can urge the same before the trial Court when the discharge application is filed before it.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2023:KHC:40268 CRL.P No. 3061 of 2023

¶33

In that view of the matter, this petition is not maintainable and therefore it is dismissed, subject to the observations made herein above.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

PK CT: BHK

Sri. a. Dinakar Rai v. State by Bajape Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. a. Dinakar Rai v. State by Bajape Police Station

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. M Basappa Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Padma Priya Rupesh Vs Smt. Subbamma

Smt Kavitha K v Vs Sri Revanasiddappa G R

Sri. a. Dinakar Rai, Vs State by Bajape Police Station

Mr Chandrahas T Ameen Vs Mr a Dinakar Rai

S Ravikumar Vs G S Pushpavathi