Pradeep Moparthy Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 -

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:36113 WP No. 25237 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 25237 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PRADEEP MOPARTHY, WRONGLY INDICATED AS PRADEEP MOPRARTHY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, SON OF MR. M. PRASAD BABU, PRESENTLY RESIDING AT HOUSE NO.6, 13TH CROSS, ANNAPOORNESHWARI LAYOUT, (OPPOSITE ASHA KIRAN SHCOOL), HORAMAVU ROAD, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. REGO LPE., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE STATION, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560016. REPRESENTED HEREIN BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.

¶14

K ANUPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, WIFE OF PRADEEP MOPARTHY , NO.06, 13TH CROSS, ANNAPOORNESHWARI LAYOUT, OPPOSITE TO ASHA KIRAN SCHOOL, HORAMAVU ROAD,

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:36113 WP No. 25237 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560043. HOUSE NO.10-8-87, LBS NAGAR, FATEHNAGAR, HYDERABAD - 500018.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. MR PATIL, HCGP FOR R1)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 READ WITH SECTION 528 OF THE BNSS, 2023, PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE HONORABLE 11TH ADDL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MAYO HALL BENGALURU TO DISPOSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.53398/2020 ON THE FILE OF 11TH ADDL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE COURT, MAYO HALL BENGALURU, AS PER ANNEXURE-A HERETO WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS.

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed seeking a direction against the Court below to expedite and decide the proceedings pending in C.C.No.53398/2020.

¶24

The records disclose that the respondent No.2 lodged a complaint alleging that she was subjected to cruelty by the present petitioner and certain members of his family. Pursuant to the said complaint, the jurisdictional police registered a case, undertook investigation, and ultimately filed

¶25

3 -

¶26

NC: 2025:KHC:36113 WP No. 25237 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

a charge sheet in the year 2020. It is also seen that charges were framed as early as 2023, and the matter has been pending before the trial Court since then without substantial progress.

¶29

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the fact that the prime witnesses, including the complainant herself (CWs.1 to 5), were dropped by the prosecution on 23.10.2024 on account of their repeated absence and unwillingness to step into the witness box to prosecute the case. As a result, the petitioner is compelled to attend Court on each and every date of hearing, suffering undue embarrassment and hardship, despite there being no apparent likelihood of the trial reaching its conclusion.

¶30

In these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction for expeditious disposal of the criminal proceedings, contending that the inordinate delay in the conduct of the trial has caused him grave prejudice and violates his right to a fair and speedy trial, which is a fundamental facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶31

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:36113 WP No. 25237 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

It is well settled by a catena of decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, Abdul Rehman Antulay v. R.S. Nayak¹ that criminal trials should be conducted

¶34

with reasonable promptitude, and undue delay defeats the very purpose of prosecution as well as the rights of the accused. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasised that prolonged pendency of criminal cases, particularly when the complainant or prosecution witnesses do not cooperate, results in serious miscarriage of justice. In the present case, the alleged incident is of the year 2019; the charge sheet was laid in 2020, and we are now in 2025, yet the trial remains incomplete owing to the non-cooperation of the complainant and other material witnesses. Continuation of such proceedings, without active prosecution, would only amount to harassment of the accused and an abuse of the process of the Court.

¶35

For the foregoing reasons and having regard to the settled principles governing speedy disposal of criminal proceedings, this Court is of the view that an appropriate

¶36

1 AIR 1988 SC 1531

¶37

5 -

¶38

NC: 2025:KHC:36113 WP No. 25237 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

direction is warranted to ensure that the trial is concluded within a fixed time frame. Accordingly, the following order is made:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

(i) The petition is allowed ;

¶43

(ii) The learned XI Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bengaluru, is hereby directed to expedite and conclude the trial in C.C. No.53398/2020 as expeditiously as possible and, in any event, within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, by adopting such measures as are permissible in law to secure the attendance of witnesses and to avoid unnecessary adjournments.

¶44

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶45

CA

¶46

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 61

Pradeep Moparthy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pradeep Moparthy 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

Smt Anasuyamma Vs State of Karnataka

Manukumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri B N Shivanand Vs Sri Pramod K C

Sailen Das Vs State by Kodigehalli Police Station

K H Abdul Majeed Alias Abdul Mazeed Mysore Vs State of Karnataka

Smt L K Akila Vs Mr M Suresh