Sri a M Sridhar Vs Smt Parvathi — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

Sri a M Sridhar Vs Smt Parvathi — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 01.10.2021 in Crl.RP.No.17/2020 (Annexure-B) and the order dated 10.01.2020 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 417 and 420 IPC in P.C.R.No.27/2019 (Annexure-A) ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Ratio / Principle

Learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to retire from the case, counsel having stated that no instructions were received and a letter addressed to the petitioner having been served on 03.01.2023 without any response.

Key takeaways

The petition was dismissed: on being called out the petitioner was absent, process fee for issuance of notice to the respondent was not furnished although the matter stood listed for the fourth time, and the Court found that the petitioner was not interested in prosecuting the petition.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (M G Uma, J.), oral order dated 09.01.2025 in CRL.P No. 8328 of 2022, filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by Sri A. M. Sridhar seeking quashing of (i) the order dated 01.10.2021 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru in Crl.RP.No.17/2020 (Annexure-B) and (ii) the order dated 10.01.2020 passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge and C.J.M., Chikkamagaluru in P.C.R.No.27/2019 taking cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 417 and 420 IPC (Annexure-A). The petitioner's counsel filed a memo seeking permission to retire, stating that no instructions had been received; a letter addressed to the petitioner was served on 03.01.2023 but drew no response. When called out, the petitioner was absent and process fee for issuance of notice to the respondent had not been furnished even though the matter was listed for the fourth time. Holding that the petitioner appeared not interested in prosecuting the petition, the Court permitted counsel to retire and dismissed the petition. The merits of the quashing prayer were not adjudicated; no proposition of law was laid down.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:686 CRL.P No. 8328 of 2022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8328 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

SRI A. M. SRIDHAR S/O LATE MUNISWAMY AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS AGRICULTURIST R/AT PANDURANGA TEMPLE STREET CHIIKKAMAGALURU CITY CHULIKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577101.

PETITIONER

(BY SRI. LEELADHAR H P.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SMT PARVATHI W/O CHANNAKESHAVAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS HOUSEWIFE R/AT LAXMI SAW MILL ROAD KOTE, BELUR HAND POST HASSAN DISTRICT-573201.

…RESPONDENT

(BY SRI.LEELADHAR H.P., ADVOCATE)

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:686 CRL.P No. 8328 of 2022

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO a) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 01.10.2021 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU IN CRL.RP.NO.17/2020 UNDER ANNEXUREB, IN THE ABOVE CASE. b) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2020 PASSED BY THE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M., CHIKKAMAGALURU IN P.C.R.NO.27/2019 TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE P/U/S 417 AND 420 OF IPC UNDER ANNEXURE-A.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

ORAL ORDER

Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo seeking permission to retire from the case.

It is stated that learned counsel for the

petitioner has not received any instructions and therefore

a letter was addressed to the petitioner and the same is served on the petitioner. In spite of that, there is no response. A copy of the letter along with postal receipt and postal acknowledgment are produced. As per the

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:686 CRL.P No. 8328 of 2022

postal acknowledgment, notice was served on the petitioner on 03.01.2023. Till date, the petitioner has neither appeared before the Court nor made any alternate arrangement. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to retire from the case.

Petitioner called out. Absent. Process fee for

issuance of notice to the respondent is not furnished even though the matter is listed for the fourth time. It appears that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition.

The petition is dismissed.

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

SA ct:sr List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3