Dismissed

Somashekarappa H P v. State by Police Inspector

Karnataka HC24 Jan 2024CRL.P/3129/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed a petition under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of criminal proceedings for cheating and forgery. The court held that since the trial had commenced and the witness was partially examined, interference was not warranted, though it directed the trial court to conclude proceedings within six months.

What did the court decide?

The trial court is directed to take coercive steps to secure witnesses and conclude the trial within six months from the date of receipt of the order.

Somashekarappa H P Vs State by Police Inspector — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:3427 CRL.P No. 3129 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3129 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SOMASHEKARAPPA H P

¶8

S/O LATE PUTTAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶9

T. MAMATHA

¶10

W/O SOMASHEKARAPPA H P AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, BOTH ARE R/O: HANUMANTHAPURA VILLAGE, HOLEHONNUR HOBLI, BHADRAVATHI TALUK, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. S V PRAKASH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR NEW TOWN POLICE STATION,

¶16

BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HON'BLE HIGH COURT KARNATAKA, BENGLAURU - 560 001.

¶17

ARUN KUMAR HEGDE AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/A I.D.K., 73/A, HUTTA COLONY, BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; R2-SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:3427 CRL.P No. 3129 of 2023

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND THE PROCEEDINGS IN CR.NO.60/2016 REGISTERED BY THE BHADRAVATHI NEW TOWN POLICE AND TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF C.C.NO.2790/2016 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED IV ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C BHADRAVATHI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 420, 465 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 under section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings in Crime No.60/2016 registered by Bhadravathi New Town Police station, for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 465 read with 34 of IPC, and quashing the criminal proceedings in C.C.No.2790/2016 pending on the file of IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Bhadravathi.

¶25

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 is served and unrepresented.

¶26

The case of the prosecution is that, on the private complaint filed by the respondent No.2, later got it referred to

¶27

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:3427 CRL.P No. 3129 of 2023

¶29

the police. In turn police registered the FIR in crime No.60/2016 by Bhadravathi New Town Police for the aforementioned offences. After the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against three accused persons. Subsequently, the charges were framed by the Magistrate. During the pendency, accused No.1, said to be no more and charges were abated. Accused Nos.2 and 3 are facing the trial and are before this court.

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits the civil dispute is converted as criminal case. It is nothing but abuse of process of law. Even otherwise P.W.1/the complainant not attending court for last 4 years. NBW and proclamation has been issued. But the trial was not proceeded by the trial court. Therefore, prayed for quashing criminal proceedings. The complainant also said to be obtained the decree and it is referred in the complaint.

¶31

Per contra learned HCGP seriously objected the petition, as the matter was already under trial, the court cannot interfere with the proceedings.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:3427 CRL.P No. 3129 of 2023

¶34

Having heard the arguments perused the records. On perusal of the records, which reveals the complaint came to be filed in the year 2016. Later, it was referred and FIR was registered. The charge sheet was filed in the year 2016 itself. Subsequently, the petitioner pleaded not guilty and the case was posted for recording prosecution witnesses. Accordingly, CW1 appeared before the court and examined himself as P.W.1 and for further examination-in-chief, it was deferred, from 5.3.2022 to 21.3.2022. By that time the lockdown was declared by the Government of India as well as Government of Karnataka. Subsequently, it was dragged for so many years and on most of the dates, the accused persons remained absent. NBW were issued continuously and it was recalled, one or the other day and the dates were adjourned by the trial court, because of absence of the accused. Later summons was also issued to the accused. Warrant was also issued by the PW1, but he was not present. Therefore, a proclamation was issued on 9.2.2023, subsequently it was published. Thereafter, once again the case was posted for further evidence for summoning the CW1 once again. On perusal of the same, ofcourse once the notice was issued, the complainant also

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:3427 CRL.P No. 3129 of 2023

¶36

appeared and partly examined. The summons was issued to P.W.1 if not appeared the Trial Court has discretion to reissue summons or NBW, if not able to secure then the Trial Court can drop the examination of the witnesses and proceed to summon other witnesses and if required Investigating Officer, thereafter conclude the proceedings. Once the proclamation was issued and CW1 was not secured through court, once again issuing the NBW, does not arises. On considering the same, I am of the view, once trial is begun witness was partly examined, the question of interfering at this stage, does not arises, hence the petition deserves to be dismissed.

¶37

Accordingly this petition is dismissed .

¶38

The Trial Court is directed to take coercive steps to secure the witnesses and conclude the trial within 6 months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

¶39

AKV_List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55_CT:SK

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

Somashekarappa H P v. State by Police Inspector

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somashekarappa H P v. State by Police Inspector

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 Zareena Haneef Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ravi Kumar K Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Vishwanath Vs Smt. Mangala

Mr Kumar C Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Vignesh G Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.K.Nilesh Vs State of Karnataka