Dismissed

Sri. S. Prathap v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Jun 2023CRL.P/4460/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.PC to quash an FIR, the petitioners sought to withdraw the petition. The Court observed that cooperating with investigation is not harassment and disposed of the petition with liberty to approach appropriate forums later.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed with observation that respondents need not harass and they must cooperate with investigation; liberty to approach appropriate forum reserved.

Sri. S. Prathap Vs the State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:19351 CRL.P No. 4460 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4460 OF 2023

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. S. PRATHAP S/O LATE SHESHAPPA K R AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/A NO.184, KITHAGANUR KRISHNARAJAPURA POST BANGALORE-560 036.

¶9

SRI MUNESH GOWDA @ MUNIVENKATAPPA Y M S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/A YANADAHALLI, HUTHUR KOLAR-563 101.

¶10

…PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P M., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY KOTHNUR POLICE BANGALORE-560 077 REPRESENTED THROUGH SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001.

¶15

SMT MARIA PARIMALA W/O LATE A SAGAYANATHAN AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/A NO.25, ASHOK ROAD DAVIS ROAD CROSS, FRAZER TOWN

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:19351 CRL.P No. 4460 of 2023

¶18

ST THOMAS TOWN POST BENGALURU-560005

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SMT.K.P.YASHODA, HCGP FOR R-1)

¶21

THIS CRL.P FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.84/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE XI A.C.M.M, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 419,420,465,468,470,471 R/W 34 OF IPC BY THE FIRST RESPONDENT, KOTHNUR POLICE AS PER ANNEXURE-A ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 22.04.2023 GIVEN BY THE COMPLAINANT-RESPONDENT NO.2 AS PER ANNEXURE-B BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE CRL.P.

¶22

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners after arguing the

¶25

matter then seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the petition. He made one submission that the respondent - Police should not harass the petitioners.

¶26

2. It is needless to observe that the petitioners shall co-

¶27

operate with the investigation as and when needed by the Investigating Officer and that cannot be construed to be any kind of harassment.

¶28

NC: 2023:KHC:19351 CRL.P No. 4460 of 2023

¶29

¶30

The petition is disposed with the aforesaid

¶31

observation reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate Forum and at the appropriate time.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE

¶33

HNM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Sri. S. Prathap v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. S. Prathap v. the 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

Smt Roopa S R Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Rajappa B Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Vishal Sharma Vs the State by

Uma C Vs State by Mandya Csec Vigilance Ps

Prakash a Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Kunal Jain Vs State of Karnataka