Mrs Lohini P Vs State of Karnataka by — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Mrs Lohini P Vs State of Karnataka by — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in C.C.No.16544/2021, based on Cr.No.68/2021 of Soladevanahalli P.S., Bengaluru City, for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC, 1860, ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.PC (as raised by the petitioners' prayer; the Court did not reach this question, dismissing the petition for default).

Ratio / Principle

The petition is dismissed for default: despite the conditional order dated 01.07.2025 directing that steps be taken in respect of respondent No.2 on pain of dismissal, the steps were not taken, and with no representation for the petitioners in either session the Court concluded that the petitioners were not interested in prosecuting the petition. The quashing prayer under Section 482 Cr.PC was not adjudicated on merits.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No. 5129 of 2022 (registered as 482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)), filed under Section 482 Cr.PC by three petitioners — Mrs Lohini P, Mrs Hemavathy M and Mr Pravagna — through Sri Parameswarappa C (recorded as 'ADVOCATE-ABSENT'), praying to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.16544/2021 pending before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru Rural District at Bengaluru, based on Cr.No.68/2021 of Soladevanahalli P.S., Bengaluru City, for offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC, 1860. Respondents: (1) State of Karnataka (Sri Vinay Mahadevaiah, HCGP); (2) Mr Deepak T R. On the hearing date (10.07.2025) there was no representation for the petitioners in the morning session or the afternoon session. A conditional order dated 01.07.2025 had directed that steps be taken in respect of respondent No.2 failing which the petition would be dismissed; despite this the needful was not done. Concluding that the petitioners were not interested in prosecuting the petition, Hon'ble Ms. Justice J.M.Khazi dismissed the petition for default. The question of quashing the criminal proceedings was left undecided, no merits point being determined.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:25343 CRL.P No. 5129 of 2022

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5129 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

MRS LOHINI P

W/O MR DEEPAK T R D/O LATE T PRANESH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

MRS HEMAVATHY M W/O LATE T PRANESH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

MR PRAVAGNA S/O LATE T PRANESH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS

ALL ARE R/O NO.319, 6TH CROSS JANATHA COLONY, KASAGHATTAPURA HESARAGHATTA BENGALURU-560066

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. PARAMESWARAPPA C, ADVOCATE-ABSENT)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SOLADEVANAHALLI POLICE STATION BENGALURU CITY

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:25343 CRL.P No. 5129 of 2022

HC-KAR

BENGALURU-560107 REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU-560001

MR DEEPAK T R S/O LATE RANGASWAMY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS R/A NO.112, 1ST MAIN, 3RD CROSS RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT NEAR MICO LAYOUT, BEGUR MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560068

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.16544/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT AT BENGALURU BASED ON THE CR.NO.68/2021 OF THE SOLADEVANAHALLI P.S., BENGALURU CITY FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 341,323,504,506 R/W 34 OF IPC, 1860 BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

ORAL ORDER

No representation for petitioners.

No representation for petitioners even in the

afternoon session.

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:25343 CRL.P No. 5129 of 2022

HC-KAR

This matter is of the year 2022.

Vide order dated 01.07.2025, a conditional order was

passed to the effect that if steps is not taken in respect of respondent No.2, necessary orders would be passed for dismissal of the petition.

Despite the same, needful has not been done. It appears petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the petition.

Hence, petition is dismissed for default.

Sd/(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE

RR

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3