Allowed

Smt Srilatha Vema Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Jun 2024CRL.P/5272/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petition under Section 482 CrPC sought quashing of C.C.No.53071/2016 for forgery and cheating offences under IPC and Passports Act. Counsel for both sides conceded the matter was covered by a co-ordinate bench order. The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the pending proceedings.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in C.C.No.53071/2016 on the file of X Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Mayohall, Bangalore City quashed.

Smt Srilatha Vema Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:21817 CRL.P No. 5272 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5272 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT SRILATHA VEMA REDDY W/O VEMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/AT NO.110 , 3^RD E CROSS EAST OF NGEF, KASTURI NAGAR BENGALURU - 560043

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. LEELA P., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE STATION REPRSENTED BY SPP OFFICE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560001

¶14

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

SRI RAJASHEKARAIA WORKING AS PSI J B POLICE STATION BENGALURU - 560075

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. P.THEJESH, HCGP)

¶18

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.PC. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.53071/2016 PURSUANT TO THE CHARGE SHEET DATED 23.04.2016 REGISTERED IN CR.NO.71/2016 BY THE RAMAMURTHY NAGAR P.S. PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 10TH ADDL.C.M.M COURT, MAYO HALL BENGALORE CITY AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 07.05.2016 OF COGNIZANCE OF THE

¶19

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:21817 CRL.P No. 5272 of 2024

¶20

LEARNED MAGISTRATE TAKING COGNIZANCE FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 419,420,465,466,468,471,474,120(b),R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.12(1)(b) OF THE PASSPORTS ACT IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

Heard Smt. Leela P., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri. P.Thejesh, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondents.

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.53071/2016 registered for offences punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 466, 468, 471, 474, 120B read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 12(1)(b) of the Passports Act, 1967.

¶25

The learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP in unison submit that the issue in the case at hand stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.5823/2016 c/w

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:21817 CRL.P No. 5272 of 2024

¶28

Crl.P.No.5824/2016 , disposed of on 29.09.2016 , wherein

¶29

this Court has held as follows:

¶30

“………

¶31

2. The present petitioner is arrayed as Accused No.3 in a pending criminal case. It is stated that there were as many as 13cases filed against the petitioner and others, in the following background:

¶32

It was the case of the complainant one Hithendra, a Police Inspector that he had received information from his superior that active human trafficking of minor children from India to United States of America (USA) was going on by creating forged documents. On the basis of the information gathered, he was directed to investigate and register a case. Consequently, he had registered a case against 13 accused, including the present petitioner, in as many as 13 cases. It was alleged that one Geetha Prakash of Marathahalli, Bangalore, was a passport holder and it was to expire on 26.12.2012. She had made an application for renewal of her passport and was able to get her passport renewed.

¶33

3. The accused No.1 Sangeetha Prakash had obtained a passport in favour of her minor daughter Maneesh Prakash on20.10.2014. Further, it is alleged that Accused No.1 had left to USA in December 2014, along with her children Master Prajval Prakash and Kum. Maneesh Prakash. The respondent – police alleged that the present petitioner had helped Accused No.1 in obtaining the passport in favour of her children, though they were not her biological children and it was made out that they were mentioned to be her children for the purpose of passport and in order to traffic the children to USA for immoral and illegal purposes. It was in that background that the accused were taken into custody on discovery that the passports had been obtained by such modus operandi of making it seem that Accused No.1 was the natural biological parent of the children. The so-called parents would take the children to USA for illegal purposes. After handing over the children to the

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:21817 CRL.P No. 5272 of 2024

¶35

recipients in the USA, the so-called parents would return to India. It is in this background that the petitioner also was arrayed as one of the accused.

¶36

However, it was in retrospect found that the petitioner was innocent and he had merely come to Bangalore on a visit from Gonikoppa in Madikeri and he had come with his family and since he knew one of the accused, he had stayed with him, in order to save on lodging elsewhere and it is that misfortune that the police have made him also an accused, since he was seen in the company of the accused.

¶37

It is in this circumstance that he has been arrayed as an accused in as many as 13 cases. It is stated that out of the 13 cases registered, he has been discharged in 11 cases. However, it is only these two stray cases in which the police have proceeded further, though the allegations in all the cases was identical insofar as the petitioner’s role is concerned. Hence, he seeks that he be discharged in those two pending cases as well, namely in C.C.No.52988/2016 and C.C.No.53071/2016.

¶38

4. The learned State Public Prosecutor would concede that the allegations against the petitioner in all the cases as stated, was identical and there is no reason as to why he should be prosecuted in the remaining two cases.

¶39

5. Consequently, the petitions are allowed. The proceedings pending in C.C.No.52988/2016 andC.C.No.53071/2016 on the file of the X Additional Chief8Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayohall, Bangalore, are quashed insofar as the petitioner is concerned.”

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:21817 CRL.P No. 5272 of 2024

¶42

In the light of the order passed by the

¶43

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court (supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following:

¶44

ORDER

¶45

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶46

(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.53071/2016 pending on the file of the X Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Mayohall, Bangalore City, stand quashed.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 154

Smt Srilatha Vema Reddy v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Srilatha Vema Reddy 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri. Mohan Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Varun v Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Hemantha P Vs State of Karnataka by

Prasanna Vs State by

Sri Channegowda Vs J Devaraj

Mr. Zameer Ibrahim Vs the State