Sadhana Prashanth Karkare v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2025CRL.P/3486/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: quashing of FIR; non-cognizable offence; Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.; permission to investigate; application of mind; cryptic/non-speaking order; Section 171F IPC; election-related offence; Koramangala Police Station; Crime No.94/2024; 39th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Bengaluru; Vageppa Gurulingo Jongoligi ILR 2020 KAR 630; Sri Krishnappa M.T. Crl.P.No.13215/2023; Tejasvi Surya Crl.P.No.9961/2021; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Section 528 BNSS; High Court of Karnataka; S.R. Krishna Kumar J.; NC: 2025:KHC:20010; decided 11.06.2025.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the criminal proceedings in Crime No.94/2024 registered by respondent No.1 Police (Koramangala P.S.), on the file of the 39th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offence under Section 171F IPC, in so far as the petitioner is concerned. ¶130

Sadhana Prashanth Karkare Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶130

Issue for consideration

Whether the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. permitting investigation into the non-cognizable offence under Section 171F IPC was passed with application of mind and reasons, as required by law. +1 more

¶36

Court's answer

The impugned order passed under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. permitting investigation fell foul of the principles laid down in Vageppa Gurulingo Jongoligi (ILR 2020 KAR 630) and Sri Krishnappa M.T. (Crl.P.No.13215/2023) since it was passed without application of mind; consequently the impugned proceedings deserve to be quashed.

¶127

Ratio / Principle

The petition is allowed and the criminal proceedings in Crime No.94/2024 registered by respondent No.1 Police, on the file of the 39th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Section 171F IPC, are quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

¶135

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (CRL.P No. 3486 of 2024) under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) — Quashing of FIR — Non-cognizable offence under Section 171F IPC — Complaint dated 28.03.2024 by respondent No.2; police requisition to the learned Magistrate under Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. granted by a cryptic, laconic, non-speaking and unreasoned order without application of mind or valid reasons — contrary to the principles/guidelines laid down in Vageppa Gurulingo Jongoligi v. State of Karnataka, ILR 2020 KAR 630 and Sri Krishnappa M.T. v. State of Karnataka, Crl.P.No.13215/2023 (07.11.2024), and consistent with Sri L.S. Tejasvi Surya v. State of Karnataka, Crl.P.No.9961/2021 (15.02.2022) — FIR in Crime No.94/2024 of Koramangala P.S., pending before the 39th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, quashed in so far as the petitioner is concerned — Petition allowed (S.R. Krishna Kumar J., 11.06.2025).

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:20010 CRL.P No. 3486 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3486 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SADHANA PRASHANTH KARKARE, WRONGLY MENTIONED AS SADANA IN FIR, W/O PRASHANT KARKARE, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT C-003, MAPLE BLOCK, RAHEJA RESIDENCY, KORAMANGALA 3^RD BLOCK, BENGALURU-560034.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI KOUSHIK, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KORAMANGALA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

SRI RAGHAVENDRA .R S/O RAJGOPAL .D AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY AND SEWERAGE BOARD, KORAMANGALA 3^RD BLOCK, BENGALURU-560034.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1 & R-2)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.94/2024, PENDING ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENT NO.1 KORAMANGALA P.S., BENGALURU FOR THE

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:20010 CRL.P No. 3486 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

OFFENCE 171F OF IPC (ALSO PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 39^TH ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU).

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

In this petition, petitioner seeks for the following reliefs:

¶28

a) Call for the relevant records;

¶29

b) Quash the FIR in Crime No.94/2024, pending on the file of Respondent No.1 Koramangala PS, Bengaluru for the offences punishable u/s 171F of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (also pending on the file of the 39^th Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru).

¶30

c) Grant any such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in light of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶31

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned

¶32

HCGP for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and perused the material on record.

¶33

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that pursuant to complaint dated 28.03.2024 filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:20010 CRL.P No. 3486 of 2024

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

171F of IPC, a requisition was made by respondent No.1 – Police to learned Magistrate to permit for investigation under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C, which was granted by passing a cryptic, laconic, non speaking and unreasoned order without assigning valid reasons, which is contrary to the principles laid down by this Court in the cases of Vageppa Gurulingo Jongoligi Vs. State of Karnataka – ILR 2020 KAR 630 and Sri.Krishnappa M.T. and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another – Crl.P.No.13215/2023 dated 07.11.2024.

¶37

In the case of Vageppa Gurulingo Jongoligi Vs. State of Karnataka – ILR 2020 KAR 630, this Court held as under:

¶38

“ 16. Therefore, this Court time and again has quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused persons in respect of non-cognizable offence on the ground that the mandatory provisions of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., are not complied with. However, this Court has not laid down any guidelines for the Learned Magistrates as to how and in what manner they have to pass the Order under Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., when a requisition is submitted to the Learned Magistrate seeking permission to investigate the non-cognizable offence.

¶39

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:20010 CRL.P No. 3486 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

17. In the cases referred above, invariably the Learned Magistrates have passed the orders on the requisition submitted by the SHO of the Police Station by writing a word “permitted” or “permitted to investigate”. This Court has held that making such an endorsement on the requisition submitted by the Police is not passing orders and there is no application of judicious mind in permitting the Police Officer to take up the investigation for non-cognizable offence.

¶42

18. Under these circumstances, this Court felt it necessary to lay down some guidelines for the benefit of our Judicial Magistrates as to how they have to approach and pass orders when requisition is submitted by the SHO of Police Station seeking permission to investigate into the noncognizable offence. The provision of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., referred above make it very much clear that the SHO of the Police Station on receiving the information regarding the commission of non-cognizable offence, his first duty is to enter or cause to be entered the substance of such commission in a book maintained by such Officer and then refer the informant to the Magistrate. This is the requirement of Section 155(1) of Cr. P.C. Once the requisition is submitted to the Magistrate, it is for the Jurisdictional Magistrate to consider the requisition submitted by the SHO of Police Station and pass necessary order either permitting the Police Officer to take up the investigation or reject the requisition. Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., specifically provides that no Police Officer shall investigate the non-cognizable case without the order of the Magistrate having power to try

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:20010 CRL.P No. 3486 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

such case or commit such case for trial. Therefore, passing an “order” by the Magistrate permitting the Police Officer to investigate the non-cognizable offence is an important factor. The word without the order of the Magistrate appearing in sub-Section (2) of Section 155 of Cr. P.C., makes it clear that the Magistrate has to pass an ‘order’ which means supported by reasons. On the other hand, in number of cases, the Jurisdictional Magistrates are writing a word ‘permitted’ on the requisition submitted by the Police itself which does not satisfy the requirement of Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C., Such an endorsement cannot be equated with the word ‘Order’.

¶46

19. Chapter V Rule 1 of Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, 1968 also deals with investigation of noncognizable case. The said provision reads as follows:—

¶47

“INVESTIGATION AND PROSECUTION

¶48

*1. Report under Section 154.—(1) On receipt of the report of the Police Officer under Section 154 of the Code, the Magistrate shall make a note on the report of the date and time of the receipt thereof and initial the same. Before initialing, the Magistrate shall also endorse on the report whether the same has been received by the post or muddam.

¶49

2. (1) When a Magistrate directs an investigation of a case under Sections 155(2), 156(3) or 202 of the Code, he shall specify in his order the rank and designation of the Police Officer or the Police Officers by whom the investigation shall be conducted.”

¶50

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:20010 CRL.P No. 3486 of 2024

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

20. Therefore, under Rule 1, the Magistrate shall endorse on the report whether the same has been received by post or muddam. Under Rule 2, Magistrate has to specify in his order the rank and designation of the Police Officer or the Police Officer by whom the investigation shall be conducted. Considering the mandatory requirement of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr. P.C., and Rule 1 and 2 of Chapter V of the Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice, this Court proceed to laid down the following guidelines for the benefit of the judicial Magistrate working in the State.

¶53

i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop hereafter making endorsement as ‘permitted ’ on the police requisition itself Such an endorsement is not an order in the eyes of law and as mandated under Section 155(2) of Cr. P.C.

¶54

ii) When the requisition is submitted by the informant to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he should make an endorsement on it as to how it was received, either by post or by Muddam and direct the office to place it before him with a separate order sheet. No order should be passed on the requisition itself. The said order sheet should be continued for further proceedings in the case.

¶55

iii) When the requisition is submitted to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he has to first examine whether the SHO of the police station has referred the informant to him with such requisition.

¶56

iv) The Jurisdictional Magistrate should examine the contents of the requisition with his/her judicious mind and record finding as to whether it is a fit case to be investigated, if the Magistrate finds that it is not a fit case to investigate, he/she shall reject the prayer made in the requisition. Only after his/her subjective satisfaction that there is a ground to permit the police officer to take up the investigation,

¶57

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:20010 CRL.P No. 3486 of 2024

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

he/she shall record a finding to that effect permitting the police officer to investigate the noncognizable offence.

¶60

v) In case the Magistrate passes the orders permitting the investigation, he/she shall specify the rank and designation of the Police Officer who has to investigate the case, who shall be other than informant or the complainant.

¶61

21. Coming to the case on hand, the SHO of Kagwad Police Station received a complaint from PSI on 23/9/2019 and SHO submitted a requisition to IV Additional JMFC, Athani, seeking permission to investigate the offence under Section 87 of the K.P. Act which is a non-cognizable offence. It is seen that the Learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has made an endorsement on the requisition which reads as follows:—

¶62

“Perused materials. Permitted

¶63

Sd/-”

¶64

22. Therefore, absolutely there is no application of judicious mind by the Learned Magistrate before permitting the Police to investigate the non-cognizable offence much less an order passed by the Learned Magistrate.

¶65

23. Under these circumstances, the proceedings initiated against the petitioner in CC No. 3397/2019 pending on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Athani, are liable to be quashed so far as the petitioner is concerned. Accordingly, the petition filed under Section 482

¶66

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:20010 CRL.P No. 3486 of 2024

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

of Cr. P.C., is allowed and the said proceedings are hereby quashed as against the petitioner is concerned.

¶70

24. Registry is directed to forward the copy of the order to the Director of Karnataka State Judicial Academy, Bengaluru, for information and necessary action.

¶71

25. Registry is also directed to circulate the copy of the order to all the judicial Magistrates in the State to follow guidelines laid down in the order.”

¶72

5. In the case of Sri. Krishnappa M.T. and another Vs. State of Karnataka and another – Crl.P.No.13215/2023 dated

¶73

07.11.2024, this Court held as under:

¶74

‘9. The offences alleged are the ones punishable under Section 504 and 34 of the IPC. They are admittedly non cognizable. Therefore, a non-cognizable report was rendered by the jurisdictional police, after interaction on 24.08.2020. The Station House Officer then travels to the Court of the Magistrate seeking permission for registration of a crime for offences punishable under Sections 504 and 34 of the IPC, since the offences alleged were noncognizable, the nod of the Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. was imperative. The learned Magistrate passes the following order:

¶75

"The PSI of Turuvekere Police Station approached with requisition seeking permission to proceed with the investigation of non-cognizable case.

¶76

¶77

NC: 2025:KHC:20010 CRL.P No. 3486 of 2024

¶78

HC-KAR

¶79

It is mentioned that the complainant lodged the written information about alleged insult caused by the proposed accused persons.

¶80

As per Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C., there is a bar for the police officer to proceed with the investigation of the non-cognizable case without the order of a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the case or commit the case for trial.

¶81

When, police officer received, the information about non- cognizable case, then necessarily seek from permission the Jurisdictional magistrate to proceed with the investigation.

¶82

By considering the request and information of the complainant, it is revealed that the information in a non-cognizable case is received by the police officer. In the interest of justice, it is proper to accord permission to proceed in accordance with Law."

¶83

The learned Magistrate records that the Police Officer receives the information about a non-cognizable offence, then necessarily has to seek permission from jurisdictional Magistrate, to proceed with the investigation. This is the procedure that is narrated in the order. The so called application of mind by the learned Magistrate is only in the words "By considering the request and information of the complainant, it is revealed that the information in a noncognizable case is received by the police officer. In the interest of justice, it is proper to accord permission to proceed in accordance with Law."

¶84

10. The afore-quoted words of the learned Magistrate can by no stretch of imagination be an order, which bears application of mind.

¶85

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:20010 CRL.P No. 3486 of 2024

¶86

HC-KAR

¶87

11. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor seeks to defend this action on the score that it is a lengthy order and it does bear application of mind. I decline to accept the said submission as what is required in law, while the Magistrate grants permission to register a crime, is application of mind, which is ostensibly absent in the afore-quoted paragraph. Therefore, it is not an order that has even a semblance of application of mind. It is rather shocking that Magistrates while granting permission, do not apply their mind and callously grant permission to register the crime while passing orders under Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C. These acts of passing orders, which bear no reasons or application of mind, have resulted in docket explosion before this Court. Therefore, time and again this Court has directed the Magistrates not to indulge in passing of such orders. The Magistrates are still passing the same orders, as if it is a frolicsome act.

¶88

12. In the case at hand, the afore-quoted paragraph is the reason. It is in fact an order which has no reasons. Merely passing lengthy orders, only to fill up the pages, will not mean an order on application of mind. It is the application of mind that is necessary in law and not application of ink; it is not the flow of ink on the paper that is necessary in law, but flow of content depicting such application of mind.”

¶89

11 -

¶90

NC: 2025:KHC:20010 CRL.P No. 3486 of 2024

¶91

HC-KAR

¶92

In the case of Sri.L.S. Tejasvi Surya Vs. State of Karnataka and Ors passed in Crl.P.No.9961/2021 dated 15.02.2022, this Court held as under:

¶93

“Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for the respondents.

¶94

Petitioner has sought for quashing of the proceedings pursuant to F.I.R. No.51/2019. Petitioner has also sought for quashing of the charge sheet dated 02.07.2019 and also for quashing the entire proceedings arising out of C.C.No.3077/2020 pending before the II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.

¶95

The petitioner submits that pursuant to the information made out by a counsel to the 2^nd respondent on 17.04.2019, the 2^nd respondent filed a complaint before the 1^st respondent on the same day. The allegation made out was that one Sri. Narayanappa had got printed about 2000 copies of pamphlets on behalf of the petitioner herein who was the BJP candidate and distributed the same without mentioning name and address of the printer and publisher and accordingly, committed offence under Section 127A of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (for short 'the Act') and action was sought for as regards the said offence. It is submitted that information was then made out to the Magistrate as per Annexure-C requesting for

¶96

12 -

¶97

NC: 2025:KHC:20010 CRL.P No. 3486 of 2024

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

permission to commence investigation. On the basis of written requisition at Annexure-C, Magistrate has endorsed the word 'permitted'.

¶100

It is submitted that such endorsement is not in consonance with the requirement under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C and is clearly in violation of the directions passed by this Court in the case of Vaggeppa Gurulinga Jangaligi (Jangaligi) vs. The State Of Karnataka – ILR 2020 KAR 630 .

¶101

It is further submitted that though the offences made out in the FIR were 127(2) and 127A of the Act and171F of IPC, the charge sheet that came to be filed after investigation only made out offence of Section 127A of the Act. Accordingly, it is submitted that the proceedings consequent to the permission given by the Magistrate requires to be set aside on the sole ground that the order is not in consonance with the requirements of Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the petitioner would also contend that even on merits, the proceedings are liable to be quashed as the requirement under Section 127A is only as regards to the person who prints and cannot in any way lead to proceedings to be carried out as against the petitioner who was the candidate.

¶102

In so far as the contention that permission given by the Magistrate is contrary to the mandate under Section 155(2) of the Act, the said contention

¶103

13 - NC: 2025:KHC:20010 CRL.P No. 3486 of 2024

¶104

HC-KAR

¶105

requires to be accepted. This Court in the judgment in the case of Vaggeppa (supra) has pointed out the procedure to be followed while granting permission for investigation. Relevant observation made by the Coordinate Bench of this Court at paragraph No.20 is extracted hereunder:

¶106

"20. Therefore, under Rule I, the Magistrate shall endorse on the report whether the same has been received by post or muddam. Under Rule 2, the Magistrate has to specify in his order the rank and designation of the police officer or the police officer by whom the investigation shall be conducted. Considering the mandatory requirement of Section 155(1) and (2) of Cr.P.C. and Rule 1 and 2 of Chapter V of the Karnataka Criminal Rules Practice, this Court proceed to laid down the following guidelines for the benefit of the judicial Magistrate working in the State.

¶107

i) The Jurisdictional Magistrates shall stop hereafter making endorsement as 'permitted' on the police requisition itself. Such an endorsement is not an order in the eyes of lawandasmandatedunderSection155(2)of Cr.P.C.

¶108

¶109

iii) When the requisition is submitted to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he has to first examine whether the SHO of the police station has

¶110

14 -

¶111

NC: 2025:KHC:20010 CRL.P No. 3486 of 2024

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

referred the informant to him with such requisition.

¶114

iv) The Jurisdictional Magistrate should examine the contents of the requisition with his/her judicious mind and record finding as to whether it is a fit case to be investigated. If the Magistrate finds that it is not a fit case to investigate, he/she shall reject the prayer made in the requisition. Only after his/her subjective satisfaction that there is a ground to permit the police officer to take up the investigation, he/she shall record a finding to that effect permitting the police officer to investigate the non- cognizable offence.

¶115

¶116

Clearly, the requirement that is made out is that when the requisition is submitted by the informant to the Jurisdictional Magistrate, he should make an endorsement on it as to how it was received and direct the office to place it before him with a separate order sheet. The Court has clarified that no order should be passed on the requisition itself and that the entry to be made in that regard is to be made in the order sheet and the said order sheet should be continued for further proceedings. Further direction has been passed at sub-para (iv) of paragraph No.20 of the judgment extracted above which also requires the Magistrate to examine the contents of the requisition and record a finding as to whether it is a fit case to be

¶117

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:20010 CRL.P No. 3486 of 2024

¶118

HC-KAR

¶119

investigated and that if the Magistrate finds that it is not a fit case to be investigated, he shall reject the prayer made in the requisition. It is further pointed out that only after his subjective satisfaction that there is a ground to permit the police officer to take up the investigation, he shall record a finding to that effect permitting the police officer to investigate the non-cognizable offence.

¶120

It is also clarified that Annexure-C is a plea made by the2^nd respondent. In accordance with the mandate under Section155(2) of Cr.P.C., the informant is to be referred to the Magistrate which is preceded by the officer in-charge of the police station having made out necessary entry of the substance of the information in the book kept as mandated under Section 155. The Magistrate is to examine the informant and the complaint given by him and then proceed further.

¶121

Clearly, the said procedure that has been laid down in the judgment referred to above has not been followed in the present case. In light of the same, the endorsementoftheMagistratedated18.04.2019isset aside and the matter is relegated to the stage of the informant being referred to the Magistrate in terms of the procedure prescribed under Section 155(1) of Cr.P.C. While it requires to be noticed that as per the observation in sub- para (iv) of paragraph No.20 of the judgment extracted above, the Magistrate is required to apply his mind as to whether permission for investigation needs to be granted and accordingly, it

¶122

16 - NC: 2025:KHC:20010 CRL.P No. 3486 of 2024

¶123

HC-KAR

¶124

would not be appropriate in the present proceedings to address the other contentions raised by the petitioner as regards to the proceedings to be bad in law as ingredients of Section 127A of the Act are not satisfied. The said aspect ,needless to state is a matter to be considered by the Magistrate before granting permission by passing an order under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C.

¶125

Accordingly, the petition is disposed off subject to observations made above.”

¶126

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances,

¶127

impugned order falling foul of the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgments since the same was passed without application of mind, I am of the view that impugned proceedings deserves to be quashed.

¶128

In the result, I pass the following:

¶129

ORDER

¶130

a. The petition is allowed.

¶131

b. The impugned criminal proceedings in Crime No.94/2024 registered by respondent No.1Police, on the file of the 39^th Additional Chief

¶132

NC: 2025:KHC:20010 CRL.P No. 3486 of 2024

¶133

17 -

¶134

HC-KAR

¶135

Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 171F of IPC, in so far as the petitioner is concerned, are hereby quashed.

¶136

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶137

MBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Sadhana Prashanth Karkare v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sadhana Prashanth Karkare 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Babu Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahammad @ Mohammed Razak Mukkachary Vs the State of Karnataka

Siddappa v Kore Alias Siddarth Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Mithun Kumar S/O Channakeshava Vs State by Parappana Agrahara Police Station

Sri Gandikota Lakshmaiah Vs Tvs Credit Services Limited

Sri Nagaraju.R Vs the State of Karnataka