Dismissed

Ningaraddi Hanamaraddi Konaraddi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Jul 2024CRL.P/5587/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court denied the petition to quash proceedings based on alleged non-compliance with Section 79 of the Juvenile Justice Act regarding the specific wording 'bondage'. The court directed the petitioner to seek discharge from the trial court instead, exempting his personal appearance during the interim.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition disposed off with direction to seek discharge before trial court; personal appearance exempted.

Ningaraddi Hanamaraddi Konaraddi Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:25537 CRL.P No. 5587 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5587 OF 2024 (482)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

NINGARADDI HANAMARADDI KONARADDI, S/O HANAMARADDI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O CHILAKAWAD, NAVALGUND, DHARWAD 582 208. SITTING MLA OF NAVALGUND NOTE: NAME OF PETITIONER IS AS PER AADHAR CARD & THE NAME IN FIR & CHARGESHEET IS WRONG)

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI.K.L.PATIL.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADA VANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY NAVALGUND POLICE STATION, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶15

NAGARAJ S/O GANESHAPPA KOBALLI, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, FST OFFICE AT NO.69, NAVALGUND ASSEMLY, OCC: ASSISTANT ENGINEER- HESCOM, NAVANAGAR, P B ROAD, HUBBALI - 580 025.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B N JAGADEESH., ADDL. SPP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS D/W V.C.O DATED 05/07/2024)

¶17

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:25537 CRL.P No. 5587 of 2024

¶18

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER / ACCUSED IN C.C.NO.4135/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XLII A.C.M.M (SPL.COURT FOR TRIAL OF CASES AGAINST SITTING AS WELL AS FORMER MPs/MLAs TRIABLE BY MAGISTRATE IN THE STATE OF KARNATAKA) AT BENGALURU (42^ND A.C.M.M) IN NAVALGUND P.S. FIR CR.NO.79/2023 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 79 OF JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT 2015.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

This petition seeks quashment of criminal proceedings in C.C.NO.4135/2024 pending on the file of learned LXII Addl. CMM, Bengaluru.

¶22

Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that though Charge Sheet is not structured in terms of provisions of Sec.79 of Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, cognizance has been taken by the learned trial Judge for the offence punishable under that section which is impermissible. He argues that Sec. 79 of the Act specifically employs the word ‘bondage’

¶23

and two High Courts in the country have interpreted the same in A.NIZAMUDHIN vs. STATION HOUSE

¶24

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:25537 CRL.P No. 5587 of 2024

¶25

OFFICER, 2017 SCC OnLine Ker 7324 and DHANEE SINGH @ DHANUSH SINGH vs. STATE OF

¶26

TELANGANA in Crl.P.No.10779 of 2023 disposed off on 03.06.2024; therefore in light of this interpretation, Sec.79 is not attracted. This aspect having not been duly adverted to and considered by the learned Trial Judge, the proceedings are liable to be invalidated in terms of STATE OF HARYANA vs. BHAJAN LAL, AIR 1992 SC 604.

¶27

Learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor on

¶28

request accepted notice for Respondent No.1, notice to Respondent No.2 having been dispensed with; he opposes the petition contending that already the investigation having happened, Charge Sheet has been filed and cognizance is also taken. In a catena of decisions, this court has taken the view that in matters like this the accused should not rush to the Writ Court without exploring the possibility of discharge u/s.239/227 of Cr.P.C. 1973, the offence being non-cognizable, notwithstanding.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:25537 CRL.P No. 5587 of 2024

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶32

and having perused the petition papers, this court is not inclined to grant indulgence in the matter being broadly in agreement with the submission of learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor.

¶33

In view of the above, the criminal petition is disposed off, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek discharge in the matter by making appropriate application before the learned trial Judge within four weeks from this day. Till the application is heard & decided, the personal appearance of the petitioner be and is exempted.

¶34

Accordingly a request is made to the learned Trial

¶35

Judge to hear & dispose of the subject application in accordance with law, within eight weeks from the date it is filed. All contentions are kept open.

¶36

Sd/JUDGE

¶37

Snb/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Ningaraddi Hanamaraddi Konaraddi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ningaraddi Hanamaraddi Konaraddi 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

Sri v Somanna Vs Sri Ramakrishna

Anil Kumar Shetty K Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Punitha K C Vs State of Karnataka

Jayananda Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

Rajesh M K Vs State of Karnataka

T B Jayachandra Vs State of Karnataka