Allowed¶39

Sri. Sandeep Shetty v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Mar 2025CRL.P/1573/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CRL.P No. 1573 of 2025 (NC: 2025:KHC:11367), High Court of Karnataka, Hemant Chandangoudar J., 19.03.2025. S.482 Cr.P.C. petition; NBW and proclamation under Ss.82-83 Cr.P.C. dated 14.07.2023 set aside on accused's undertaking to appear on next date; automatic revival clause on default; trial under S.392 IPC in C.C.No.6186/2021 / Crime No.98/2020 (Hanumanthanagara PS) continues; proceedings not quashed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 14.07.2023 (non-bailable warrant and proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C.) in C.C.No.6186/2021 in Crime No.98/2020 set aside, subject to the petitioner appearing before the trial Court on the next date of hearing; the impugned order automatically revives if the petitioner fails to appear without valid reason. The underlying criminal proceedings were not quashed. ¶39

Sri. Sandeep Shetty Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶39

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in C.C.No.6186/2021 in Crime No.98/2020 (offence punishable under Section 392 IPC) before the trial Court should be quashed, and specifically whether the impugned order issuing a non-bailable warrant and proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. should be set aside in view of the petitioner's undertaking to appear before the trial Court.

¶26

Court's answer

The petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 14.07.2023 (non-bailable warrant and proclamation) in C.C.No.6186/2021 in Crime No.98/2020 is set aside, subject to the petitioner undertaking to appear before the trial Court on the next date of hearing.

¶39

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner does not appear before the trial Court on the next date of hearing without any valid reason, the impugned order stands automatically revived.

¶40

Key takeaways

Notwithstanding the State's contention that the petitioner had been absconding since 2021 and that the trial Court was justified in passing the impugned order, the Court held that the petitioner's undertaking to appear before the trial Court as and when summoned meant the impugned order required to be set aside.ratio¶32

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by an accused facing trial for an offence punishable under Section 392 IPC (C.C.No.6186/2021 in Crime No.98/2020, Hanumanthanagara Police, Bengaluru). The trial Court (XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, now XXXVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate) had, by order dated 14.07.2023, issued a non-bailable warrant and a proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. on the ground that the petitioner had absconded and was not appearing as summoned; the State pointed out he had not appeared since 2021. Counsel for the petitioner stated on instructions that the petitioner would appear before the trial Court on the next date of hearing. The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order, subject to the petitioner so appearing, with the further direction that failure to appear on the next date without valid reason would result in automatic revival of the impugned order. The criminal proceedings themselves were not quashed.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:11367 CRL.P No. 1573 of 2025

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1573 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. SANDEEP SHETTY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O RAJEEVA SHETTY, R/AT NEAR INDIAN GAS, NEAR AYYAPPASWAMY TEMPLE, GURURAJA LAYOUT, BSK 3^RD STAGE, BENGALURU-85

¶10

ALSO AT SRI. SANDEEPA, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, S/O RAJEEVA SHETTY, NO.1-151, MEL VADNALI, EDMOGE, YEDAMOGE, KUNDAPURA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT.

¶11

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

¶12

(BY SRI. PRAKASH SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

…PETITIONER

¶14

AND:

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE, HANUMANTHANAGARA POLICE STATION, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:11367 CRL.P No. 1573 of 2025

¶18

SMT. PADMA M HEBBAR, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, W/O MANJUNATHA N HEBBAR, R/AT NO 569, 5^TH MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, 5^TH MAIN, HANUMANTHANAGARA, BENGALURU-19

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. M.V.ANOP KUMAR, HCGP)

¶21

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.PC, PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.6186/2021 IN CRIME NO.98/2020 ON THE FILE OF XXIV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU AND NOW IT IS BEEN TRANSFERRED TO XXXVII ADDITIONAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AT BENGALURU, REGISTERED BY THE HANUMANTHANAGARA POLICE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 392 OF IPC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioner who is facing trial for the offence punishable under Section 392 of IPC is before this Court seeking the following relief:

¶26

WHEREFORE, the petitioner respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the entire proceedings in CC.No.6186/2021 in Crime No.98/2020 on the file of XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bengaluru and now it is been transferred to XXXVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bengaluru, registered by the Hanumnthanagara Police for the

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:11367 CRL.P No. 1573 of 2025

¶29

offences punishable under section 392 of the Indian Penal Code, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶30

The trial Court passed the impugned order issuing a nonbailable warrant and also a proclamation under Sections 82 and 83 of the Cr.P.C. citing that the petitioner has absconded and is not appearing before the Trial Court as and when summoned.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner, upon instructions submitted that the petitioner shall undertake to appear before the trial Court on the next date of hearing and therefore, the impugned order may be set aside.

¶32

Learned HCGP for the respondent No.1-State submitted that the petitioner has remained absconding, and not appeared before the Trial Court since the year 2021. The Trial Court is justified in passing the impugned order. Be that as it may, the petitioner having undertaken to appear before the trial Court as and when summoned, the impugned order requires to be set aside.

¶33

Accordingly, I pass the following orders:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i. The petition is allowed.

¶36

ii. The impugned order dated 14.07.2023 passed by the XXIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate now transferred to the XXXVII Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru,

¶37

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:11367 CRL.P No. 1573 of 2025

¶39

in C.C.No.6186/2021 in Crime No.98/2020 registered by the Hanumanthanagara Police is set aside, subject to petitioner undertaking to appear before the trial Court on the next date of hearing.

¶40

iii. In the event the petitioner does not appear before the trial Court on the next date of hearing without any valid reason, the impugned order stands automatically revived.

¶41

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶42

MEG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 79

Sri. Sandeep Shetty v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Sandeep Shetty v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Madhavan Raj Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Dr Shilpa Gupta Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Preetha Reddy Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Manappuram Finance Limited, Vs Syam Prakash

Yogesh Vs State by Basaweshwaranagar Ps

M R Chowdaiah Vs the State of Karnataka