Partly allowed

Nagaraj v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Feb 2024CRL.P/3831/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed the petitioner's application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings, holding that the gravity of offences precludes quashing. The court directed the court below to expedite the trial and decide within one and a half years.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; proceedings not quashed; Sessions Court directed to conclude trial within 1.5 years.

Nagaraj v Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:4490 CRL.P No. 3831 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3831 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. NAGARAJ V S/O. VADIVELU @ VARADAPPA @ VARADARAJU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT U-7, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, HANUMANTHAPURA, SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU-560 021.

¶8

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SRI. GANDHI. N S/O. V. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT U-7, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, HANUMANTHAPURA, SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU-560 021.

¶10

SRI. SHASTRI. N S/O. V. NAGARAJ, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT U-7, 2ND CROSS, 2ND MAIN, HANUMANTHAPURA, SRIRAMPURA, BENGALURU-560 021.

¶11

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI.UDAYA PRAKASH MULIYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. KAMALUDDIN, ADVOCATE)

¶12

¶13

NC: 2024:KHC:4490 CRL.P No. 3831 of 2020

¶14

AND:

¶15

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

¶16

SRI. AYUB KHAN 2. S/O ABDUL WAHAB KHAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, D.NO.24, 6^TH MAIN ROAD, 2^ND CROSS, BTM LAYOUT, BANGALORE CITY, KARNATAKA – 5600068

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI.M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO 1.QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN S.C.NO.829/2018 OF THE 1^ST RESPONDENT POLICE PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXVII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 397, 120B AND 506 OF IPC (ANNEXURE-A) AND ETC.,

¶20

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

¶21

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:4490 CRL.P No. 3831 of 2020

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The captioned petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 3 seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in S.C.No.829/2018 on the file of the LXVII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Section 397, 120B and 506 of IPC.

¶24

The case of the prosecution is that on 29.12.2016, the petitioners under the garb of providing place for opening petrol bunk informed respondent No.2 to come to the house of first petitioner. Respondent No.2 along with his friend reached the house of first petitioner. They were taken inside the house and when respondent No.2 acknowledged that he has brought cash to the tune of Rs.6,20,000/-, first petitioner snatched the cash that was brought by respondent No.2 and the first petitioner along with petitioners 2 and 3 intimidated respondent No.2 by showing the gun that was in his possession. Therefore,

¶25

a crime came to be registered at the instance of respondent No.2-complainant for the above said offences.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:4490 CRL.P No. 3831 of 2020

¶28

The Investigating Officer after investigation has laid a charge sheet. The petitioners have filed the captioned petition seeking quashing of the proceedings in respect of the above said offences.

¶29

On examining the charge sheet materials, having regard to the gravity of offences indicated in the charge sheet, this Court is of the view that the proceedings cannot be quashed by invoking the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Having taken cognizance of the serious allegations that are made against the petitioners, the petitioners are bound to face the trial.

¶30

For the reasons stated supra, I am not inclined to grant any indulgence at this juncture. Hence, the petition is dismissed.

¶31

The learned counsel for the petitioners has brought to the notice of this Court that though trial has commenced and the matter is listed for evidence of

¶32

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:4490 CRL.P No. 3831 of 2020

¶33

complainant on 24.6.2022, the matter is adjourned at least on six occasions. Therefore, having regard to the facts of the case, the Sessions Court shall take cognizance of the pendency of trial against the petitioners and shall expedite and decide the case at the earliest within an outer limit of one and half year.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

ALB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6

Nagaraj v. Vs the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagaraj v. Vs 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

Sri C Arun Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

S L Krishna Murthy Vs the Managing Director

Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Satish R Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraj v Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Nagaraj v Vs the State of Karnataka