Disposed¶31

Sushma v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Feb 2025CRL.P/837/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, CRL.P 837/2025 (S.R. Krishna Kumar, J., 10-02-2025): quashing petition under S.482 Cr.PC/S.528 BNSS against Accused No. 3 in POCSO/BNS case (Spl.C 377/2024; Thirthahalli PS Crime 192/2024) disposed of as withdrawn; liberty to file discharge application with documents; permission expressly non-precedential; no opinion on merits; no cases cited; no quantum.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek discharge/file a discharge application along with documents; trial Court to consider the same in accordance with law; the permission to produce documents is expressly non-precedential and fact-specific; no opinion expressed on merits. ¶31

Sushma Vs the State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the entire proceedings in Spl.C No. 377/2024 (Thirthahalli PS Crime No. 192/2024), for offences under Sections 75, 79, 3(5) BNS and Sections 12, 21 POCSO Act, qua the petitioner as Accused No. 3, could be quashed under Section 482 Cr.PC / Section 528 BNSS.

¶20

Ratio / Principle

Petition stands disposed of (withdrawn at learned counsel's request), subject to liberty reserved in favour of the petitioner to seek discharge/file a discharge application along with documents, which the trial Court shall consider in accordance with law.

¶31

Key takeaways

The permission granted to the petitioner to produce documents along with the discharge application is confined to the peculiar/special facts and circumstances of the instant case, shall not be treated as a precedent, and shall carry no precedential value for any purpose whatsoever.ratio¶30
This Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim.ratio¶31

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition No. 837 of 2025 filed under S.482 Cr.PC / S.528 BNSS by Accused No. 3 (a school teacher) seeking quashing of the entire proceedings in Spl.C No. 377/2024 (Thirthahalli PS Crime No. 192/2024), pending before the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I (POCSO), Shivamogga, for offences punishable under Sections 75, 79, 3(5) of BNS and Sections 12, 21 of the POCSO Act. After arguing the matter for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner sought withdrawal reserving liberty to seek discharge. Held: petition disposed of as withdrawn, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to seek discharge/file a discharge application along with documents, to be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law. The permission to produce documents along with the discharge application was expressly confined to the peculiar/special facts of the case and declared to carry no precedential value. The Court declined to express any opinion on the merits.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:5976 CRL.P No. 837 of 2025

¶3

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

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 837 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SUSHMA D/O SANJEETH KUMAR AGE 37 YEARS, OCCN: SCIENCE TEACHER, MURARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, ANANDGIRI R/O BEGUVALLI VILLAGE - 577 226 TQ. THIRTHAHALLI, DIST. SHIVAMOGGA

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. MAHESH KIRAN SHETTY S.,ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU BENCH-560001 THROUGH THIRTHAHALLI PS

¶13

XXXXX D/O VIRABADRAIAH AGE 15 YEARS, OCCN. STUDENT, R/O MURARJI DESAI RESIDENTIAL SCHOOL, ANANDGIRI - 580 030 TQ. THIRTHAHALLI, DIST. SHIVAMOGGA REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL FATHER

¶14

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:5976 CRL.P No. 837 of 2025

¶16

VIRABADRAIAH

¶17

R/O BULLAPURA VILLAGE - 577127 TQ AND DIST SHIVAMOGGA

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV , ADDL SPP FOR R1)

¶20

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C NO. 377/2024 (THIRTHAHALLI PS CRIME NO. 192/2024) PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, FTSC-I (POCSO), SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 75, 79, 3(5) OF BNS AND SECTION 12, 21 OF POCSO ACT IPC IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER HEREIN (ACCUSED NO. 3) IS CONCERNED.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

After arguing the matter for some time, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petition may be disposed of as withdrawn reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner to seek discharge/file a discharge application along with the documents, which may be directed to be considered by the trial Court in accordance with law.

¶25

Submission is placed on record.

¶26

The petition stands disposed of reserving liberty in

¶27

favour of the petitioner to seek discharge/file a discharge application along with documents, which shall be considered by the

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:5976 CRL.P No. 837 of 2025

¶30

trial Court in accordance with law. It is made clear that this permission granted by this Court in favour of the petitioner to produce documents along with the discharge application, is made in the peculiar/special facts and circumstances of the instant case and shall not be treated as a precedent nor shall carry any precedential value for any purpose whatsoever.

¶31

Subject to the aforesaid liberty granted in favour of the petitioner to seek discharge/file a discharge application along with documents, petition stands disposed of without expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the petitioner.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶34

Sushma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushma v. the 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

Mr Chakrapani Muppala Vs Mr Satish Avani Nagarajasastry

Sri Mohammed Waseem H Vs State of Karnataka

Shivamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. Padma N Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri N R Paramesh Vs the State by

Sharath Kumar. K @ Sharu Vs State of Karnataka