Buddi Sharma v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC7 Mar 2025CRL.P/376/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR/police-report prosecution; Section 188 IPC; Section 195 Cr.P.C. bar; written complaint by public servant lawfully empowered; Crl.P.No.10044/2022 followed; Shashikala K.S. v. State of Karnataka; Jeevanandham v. State (Madras HC); State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal categories; COTPA Sections 4 and 21; Karnataka Police Act Sections 31 and 103; C.C.No.60466/2024; Banaswadi Police Station; XI ACJM Bengaluru; Buddi Sharma; Justice M. Nagaprasanna; CRL.P No. 376 of 2025; Karnataka High Court.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.60466/2024 qua the petitioner only, with an express clarification that the observations made are confined to consideration of the petitioner's case under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and shall not bind or influence proceedings against other accused. ¶110

Buddi Sharma Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶110

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings in C.C.No.60466/2024, including the offence under Section 188 IPC registered by the police, are liable to be quashed in light of the bar under Section 195 Cr.P.C. requiring a written complaint by the public servant lawfully empowered, the issue being stated as covered by earlier judgments of this Court.

¶31

Court's answer

The Criminal Petition is allowed and the proceedings in C.C.No.60466/2024, pending on the file of the XI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore, stand quashed qua the petitioner.

¶110

Ratio / Principle

Adopting the reasons in this Court's order in Crl.P.No.10044/2022 (which reproduced Shashikala K.S. v. State of Karnataka, Jeevanandham v. State and State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal), prosecution for an offence under Section 188 IPC on a police report, without the written complaint of the public servant lawfully empowered mandated by Section 195 Cr.P.C., vitiates the proceedings; on that basis the petition is allowed.

¶105

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (S.482 Cr.P.C., filed as S.528 BNSS) by Buddi Sharma seeking quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.60466/2024 (Banaswadi Police Station) for offences under Sections 188 and 290 IPC, Sections 31 and 103 Karnataka Police Act 1963 and Sections 4 and 21 COTPA 2003, pending before the XI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru: ALLOWED. Following this Court's order in Crl.P.No.10044/2022 (disposed 11.08.2023), which set out the view in Shashikala K.S. v. State of Karnataka, Jeevanandham v. State (Madras HC) and the categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, the Court proceeded on the position that an offence under Section 188 IPC can be prosecuted only on the written complaint of the public servant lawfully empowered, as required by the mandatory bar in Section 195 Cr.P.C., and that initiation on a police report vitiates the proceedings. Proceedings qua the petitioner were quashed; the observations were expressly confined to the petitioner's case and directed not to bind or influence proceedings against other accused.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:9787 CRL.P No. 376 of 2025

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 376 OF 2025

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

BUDDI SHARMA S/O BALAKRISHNA SHARMA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS C/O BARRYS SKY LOUNGE BAR AND RESTAURANT 317, 3^RD FLOOR, 9^TH C MAIN, H R B R LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGARA, BANGALORE - 560043

¶10

(ADDRESS OF PETITIONER AS PER CHARGE SHEET COL NO 12)

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. MAHESH S AND CO., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶15

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶16

BY BANASWADI POLICE STATION BANGALORE

¶17

REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560001

¶18

SRI ANAND KOKKANAVAR S/O NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONER, AGED 40 YEARS PSI, BANASWADI POLICE STATION, BANGALORE REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560001

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP A/W SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1)

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:9787 CRL.P No. 376 of 2025

¶23

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN IN CC NO 60466/2024 BY REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BANASWADI POLICE STATION FOR OFFENCES UNDER SECTION 188 AND 290 OF IPC, SECTION 31 AND 103 OF KARNATAKA POLICE ACT 1963 AND SECTION 4 AND 21 OF CIGARETTES AND OTHER TOBACCO PRODUCTS ACT 2003 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE 11TH ADDL. C.J.M, BANGALORE AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Mahesh S., appearing for the petitioner and the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, along with the learned High Court Government Pleader Smt. K.P.Yashodha, appearing for respondent No.1.

¶28

The petitioner is before this Court, calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.60466/2024, registered for offences punishable under Sections 188 and 290 of the IPC and Sections 31 and 103 of Karnataka Police Act, 1963 and Section 4 and 21 of Cigarettes and Other Tobacco Products Act, 2003

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9787 CRL.P No. 376 of 2025

¶30

pending on the file of the XI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶31

The issue in the lis stands covered by plethora of judgments. I deem it appropriate to quote one i.e., Crl.P.No.10044/2022, disposed of on 11.08.2023, wherein

¶32

this Court has held as follows:

¶33

" 3. The facts, in brief, are as follows:-

¶34

The petitioners 1 to 7 are accused Nos.3 to 9 respectively. A complaint comes to be registered on 05-12-2019, alleging that at about 11.30 a.m., when the complainant was on election duty, accused No.2 and his associates formed an unlawful assembly and when he tried to disperse them, altercations broke out between accused No.2 and the Police. At that point in time, accused No.1 is alleged to have raised his voice and questioned the complainant as to how he can arrest him, thereby, obstructing the complainant in the discharge of his duties. This is the crux of the complaint that is made against all the accused. Based upon the said complaint, a crime comes to be registered in Crime No.271 of 2019 before Bilikere Police Station against accused Nos.1 and 2 primarily and 15 to 20 others named as accused for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 353 and 149 of the IPC. The police conduct investigation and lay a charge sheet against 9 persons on 05-10-2021 for the offences under Sections 143, 147, 188, 353 and 149 of the IPC. The petitioners are accused Nos.3 to 9. The learned Magistrate takes cognizance of the offences on 16.06.2022. It is taking of cognizance that has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

¶35

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Ms. Keerthana Nagaraj would vehemently contend that the very registration of the crime or taking of cognizance by the learned Magistrate for offence under Section 188

¶36

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:9787 CRL.P No. 376 of 2025

¶38

of the IPC is contrary to law. It is her submission that in order to prosecute an accused for an offence under Section 188 of the IPC, the procedure prescribed under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. is to be followed mandatorily. That having not been done, the very act of taking cognizance would get vitiated. She would further contend that Section 188 of the IPC mandates that the complaint should be registered by the public servant lawfully empowered. It is an admitted fact that the complainant is not the authorized officer to register the complaint. She would contend that there is no specific overt act against the petitioners, in particular, to drive them into the web of crime.

¶39

Per contra, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor would refute the submissions to contend that the Police have filed the charge sheet and the matter is set for further proceedings. The petitioners can as well seek discharge before the concerned Court and therefore, interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is unwarranted. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

¶40

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶41

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The Police Officer i.e., the 2^nd respondent is the complainant. The allegation against the petitioners on the incident, is as narrated hereinabove, which does not require reiteration. The crime is registered in Crime No.271 of 2019 for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 353 and 149 of the IPC. There was no offence registered under Section 188 of the IPC laid at the time of registration of crime. The Police file a charge sheet after investigation, after 22 months i.e., on 05.10.2021. Here the offence under Section 188 of the IPC is added. Whether Section 188 of the IPC can become an offence without it being registered by an authorized officer as that creates a bar under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. is what is required to be considered. The consideration of which,

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:9787 CRL.P No. 376 of 2025

¶44

need not detain this Court for long or delve deep into the matter. This Court in SHASHIKALA K.S. V. STATE OF KARNATAKA in Criminal Petition No.6812 of 2023 decided on 08.09.2023, has held as follows:

¶45

“….

¶46

The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C. No.7453/2013 registered by Subramanyanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City in Crime No.100/2013, dated 22.04.2013 for the offences punishable under Sections 171B, 171E & 188 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶47

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that qua the other accused, this Court has already quashed the proceedings arising out of the very same crime. This Court in the case of Dr. C.N. Ashwathnarayan S/o. T.K. Narayanappa Vs. the State of Karnataka and another in Crl.P. No.9407/2017, disposed off on 24th April 2018, wherein it is held as under:

¶48

“Petitioner is seeking for quashing of the proceedings in C.C.No.7453/2013 pending on the file of VII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, registered for the offence punishable under Sections 171(B), 171(E) and 188 r/w Section 34 of IPC on the basis of complaint lodged by second respondent herein. 2. The gist of prosecution case is; second respondent was on election duty in Malleshwaram Constituency No.157 as MCC Flying Squad–Executive Magistrate and while discharging his duties on 21.04.2014, he received information that accused No.1, who is a yoga guru, had arranged a meeting at Kranthiveera Sangollirayann Park falling within the jurisdiction of Subramanya Nagar Police Station and a meeting was being held under the leadership of said yoga guru and in that meeting, petitioner, who was a candidate at Malleshwaram Vidhana Sabha Constituency along with local CorporatorSmt.Shashikala Krishnegowda was participating in the said meeting held by yoga guru Sri.Subhash and after the meeting, breakfast had been arranged without obtaining permission from the Election Officer and on reaching the venue, he found such meeting being held. Hence, alleging that accused had violated election rules, a complaint came to be lodged, which was registered in Cr.No.100/2013 and after completion of

¶49

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:9787 CRL.P No. 376 of 2025

¶51

investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 171(B), 171(E) and 188 r/w Section 34 of IPC. Hence, petitioner is before this Court calling in question the registration of same and praying for quashing of said proceedings. 3. Heard Sri.Shanthi Bhushan.H, learned counsel appearing for petitioner and Sri.Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for first respondent – State. Perused the records. 4. As could be seen from the case records, offences alleged against petitioner are punishable under Sections 171(B) and 171(E), which are cognizable offences and as such, prior to registration of FIR, jurisdictional police ought to have obtained permission from the jurisdictional magistrate, which is conspicuously absent in the instant case. Insofar as, offences punishable under Section 188 of IPC, the bar contained in Section 195 of Cr.P.C. would come into play namely, prosecution can be initiated for said offence only by a competent officer by filing a complaint before the Court as otherwise the Court before whom proceedings is continued on the basis of police report, would not be empowered to take cognizance of said offence. 5. In the instant case, prosecution has been initiated for the offence committed under Section 188 of IPC on the basis of a police report and not on the basis of complaint lodged in writing by the competent officer, who is empowered to do so. In that view of the matter, proceedings initiated against petitioner if allowed to be continued and is directed to undergo the ordeal of trial, it would be an abuse of process of law.”

¶52

Insofar as the other accused is concerned, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has quashed the proceedings in the case of Subhash Vs. the State of Karanataka and another in Crl.P. No.9234/2017, disposed off on 22nd June 2018, wherein it is held as under:

¶53

“2. Petitioner is arrayed as accused no.2 in C.C.No.7453/2013 pending on the file of VII Addl. CMM Court, Bangalore registered for the offences punishable under Sections 171(B), 171(E), 188 read with Section 34 IPC on the basis of the final report submitted by the 2nd respondent under Section 173 Cr.P.C. 3. This Court had an occasion to deal with the same matter so far as accused no.1 is concerned. Ultimately, after a reasoned

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:9787 CRL.P No. 376 of 2025

¶56

order, this Court has quashed the proceedings against accused no.1. The same has to be made applicable so far as this petitioner is concerned. 4. This Court has categorically observed that under Sections 171B and 171E they are non-cognizable offences and so far as offence under Section 188 IPC the Police have no jurisdiction to investigate in view of the bar contained in Section 195 Cr.P.C. Therefore, considering the said legal lacunae in the case, the Court has quashed the proceedings against accused no.1. Under the above said circumstances, the same order holds good so far as the petitioner is concerned.”

¶57

In the light of the aforesaid orders answering the issue that is called in question in the case at hand, the further consideration or deeper dwelling in the matter would become unnecessary.”

¶58

It is also germane to notice the judgment of the High Court of Madras in the case of JEEVANANDHAM v. STATE reported in 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 13698, wherein it is held as follows:-

¶59

“ 19. From the above judgments, it is clear that in order to prosecute an accused for an offence punishable under Section 188 of IPC, it is mandatory to follow the procedure prescribed under Section 195 of the Code, else, such action is rendered void ab initio. The object of the provision is to provide for a particular procedure, which gives authority only to the public servant. The legislative intent is to prevent an individual or a group of persons from facing criminal prosecution instituted upon insufficient grounds by persons actuated by malice, ill will, or frivolity of disposition and to save the time of Criminal Courts from being vexed by endless prosecution. Section 195 of Cr.P.C. is an expansion to the general rule contained under Section 190 of Cr.P.C, wherein, any person can set the law in motion by making a complaint.

¶60

20. Therefore, it is very clear from the above judgments that there must be a complaint by a public servant, who is lawfully empowered, whose lawful order has not been complied with. The provisions of Section 195 of Cr.P.C. are mandatory and non-compliance, with it, will make the entire process void ab initio, being without jurisdiction.

¶61

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:9787 CRL.P No. 376 of 2025

¶63

21. The submission of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to the effect that Section 188 of IPC is a cognizable offence, and therefore, the Police Officer is entitled to proceed under Section 154, 156 and 157 of Cr.P.C, is not sustainable. The offence being cognizable by itself, does not enable the Police Officer to register an FIR for an offence under Section 188 of IPC. The reason being, such registration of an FIR has to necessarily end with a Police Report under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C, which is specifically barred under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. The definition of a complaint under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. itself makes it clear that a complaint does not include a Police Report. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has gone to the extent of saying that such a Final Report, which is taken cognizance will make the entire proceedings void ab initio which would necessarily mean that the registration of the FIR for an offence under Section 188 of IPC will also become void.

¶64

22. There is one more analogy, which can be used here. Section 195(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. prohibits any complaint for an offence that is committed during Court proceedings. Such offence committed during Court proceedings like forgery, impersonation, perjury etc., by itself may be cognizable in nature, but that does not empower the Police Officer to register an FIR and complaint in such cases can be given only by the Court concerned. Therefore, the nature of the offence does not give a right to the Police Officer to register an FIR and investigate and file a Final Report, when those offences fall within the category enumerated under Section 195 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the arguments of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor in this regard is not sustainable.

¶65

23. The next argument of the learned Additional Public Prosecutor to the effect that since a Police Officer is also a public servant under Section 21 of IPC, his Final Report filed before the Court under Section 173(2) of Cr.P.C. must be construed as a complaint under Section 195(1)(a)(i), is also not sustainable. The word used under Section 188 of IPC is “public servant lawfully empowered” and the word used in Section 195(l)(a)(i) is “public servant concerned”. The very terminology that has been used in the provision makes it clear that not all public servants falling under Section 21 of IPC can give a complaint in writing, it is only the public servant who has been specifically authorised, by a specific order in this regard, who can file a written complaint before the concerned Judicial Magistrate Court.

¶66

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:9787 CRL.P No. 376 of 2025

¶68

24. It is true that a Police Officer by virtue of the power given under Section 41 of Cr.P.C, will have the authority to arrest a person, without any warrant or order from a Magistrate, when a cognizable offence is committed in his presence or in order to prevent the committing of a cognizable offence. This power by itself will not vest the Police Officer to register an FIR for an offence under Section 188 of IPC. After the arrest, the concerned Police Officer is duty bound to inform the public servant authorised about the offence committed under Section 188 of IPC and the public servant thereafter, has to proceed in accordance with the procedure under Section 195(l)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C. In other words, the power of the Police Officer to arrest a person committing a cognizable offence, is only a preventive action and thereafter the procedure to be followed is guided by Section 195(l)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.

¶69

29. In view of the discussions, the following guidelines are issued insofar as an offence under Section 188 of IPC, is concerned:

¶70

a) A Police Officer cannot register an FIR for any of the offences falling under Section 172 to 188 of IPC.

¶71

b) A Police Officer by virtue of the powers conferred under Section 41 of Cr.P.C. will have the

¶72

authority to take action under Section 41 of Cr.P.C, when a cognizable offence under Section 188 IPC is committed in his presence or where such action is required, to prevent such person from committing an offence under Section 188 of IPC.

¶73

c) The role of the Police Officer will be confined only to the preventive action as stipulated under Section 41 of Cr.P.C. and immediately thereafter, he has to inform about the same to the public servant concerned/authorised, to enable such public servant to give a complaint in writing before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who shall take cognizance of such complaint on being prima facie satisfied with the requirements of Section 188 of IPC.

¶74

d) In order to attract the provisions of Section 188 of IPC, the written complaint of the public servant

¶75

10 -

¶76

NC: 2025:KHC:9787 CRL.P No. 376 of 2025

¶77

concerned should reflect the following ingredients namely;

¶78

i) that there must be an order promulgated by the public servant;

¶79

ii) that such public servant is lawfully empowered to promulgate it;

¶80

iii) that the person with knowledge of such order and being directed by such order to abstain from doing certain act or to take certain order with certain property in his possession and under his management, has disobeyed; and

¶81

iv) that such disobedience causes or tends to cause;

¶82

(a) obstruction, annoyance or risk of it to any person lawfully employed; or

¶83

(b) danger to human life, health or

¶84

safety; or

¶85

¶86

e) The promulgation issued under Section 30(2) of the Police Act, 1861, must satisfy the test of reasonableness and can only be in the nature of a regulatory power and not a blanket power to trifle any democratic dissent of the citizens by the Police.

¶87

f) The promulgation through which, the order is made known must be by something done openly and in public and private information will not be a promulgation. The order must be notified or published by beat of drum or in a Gazette or published in a newspaper with a wide circulation.

¶88

g) No Judicial Magistrate should take cognizance of a Final Report when it reflects an offence under Section 172 to 188 of IPC. An FIR or a Final Report will not become void ab initio insofar as offences other than Section 172 to 188 of IPC and a Final Report can be taken cognizance by the Magistrate insofar as offences not covered under Section 195(l)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.

¶89

11 -

¶90

NC: 2025:KHC:9787 CRL.P No. 376 of 2025

¶91

h) The Director General of Police, Chennai and Inspector General of the various Zones are directed to immediately formulate a process by specifically empowering public servants dealing with for an offence under Section 188 of IPC to ensure that there is no delay in filing a written complaint by the public servants concerned under Section 195(1)(a)(i) of Cr.P.C.”

¶92

The High Court of Madras has clearly laid down the guidelines when offence under Section 188 of the IPC is to be alleged. Therefore, the very act of bringing the act as an offence punishable under Section 188 of the IPC in the teeth of the bar under Section 195 of the Cr.P.C. would vitiate the entire proceedings. If further proceedings are permitted to continue in the teeth of the aforesaid facts, where no overt act is even alleged against the petitioners, even in the charge sheet, it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL reported in 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335, wherein it is held as follows:

¶93

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶94

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶95

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under

¶96

12 -

¶97

NC: 2025:KHC:9787 CRL.P No. 376 of 2025

¶98

Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶99

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶100

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶101

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶102

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶103

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶104

(Emphasis supplied)"

¶105

In the light of the order passed by this Court (supra) and for the reasons aforementioned, the following:

¶106

13 -

¶107

NC: 2025:KHC:9787 CRL.P No. 376 of 2025

¶108

ORDER

¶109

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed;

¶110

(ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.60466/2024, pending on the file of the XI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bangalore, qua the petitioner, stand quashed; and

¶111

(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings against other accused pending before the concerned Court.

¶112

Sd/-

¶113

______________________ JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶114

KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Buddi Sharma v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Buddi Sharma 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

M/S Jmc Constructions Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Reddy Gun House Vs Additional Chief Secretary

Mr. Pradeep. K. Vs the Chief Electoral Officer

Sri. Raghavendra T C Vs Central Bureau of Investigation

Sri K Ashwath Vs State of Karnataka

Ms Rebecca Maggie Pereira Vs Union of India