Dismissed¶41

Smt Brinda Battacharya Alias Brinda Roshan v. the State of Karnataka

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Sections 482 and 239 – Quashing of prosecution – Maintainability

Karnataka HC19 Sept 2025WP/26550/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 482 Cr.P.C. quashing petition dismissed as not maintainable; discharge (S.239 Cr.P.C.) and quashment are distinct remedies; unchallenged discharge-rejection order binds accused; inherent jurisdiction cannot nullify unassailed trial court order; liberty to challenge discharge order. Arts. 226/227 Constitution; CC No. 16753/2017; FIR Crime No.163/2017; Koramangala Police Station; 39th Addl. CJM Bengaluru; accused No.3; parallel remedy; circumvention of statutory procedure.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to question the order passed on the discharge application, if so advised, in accordance with law. ¶41

Smt Brinda Battacharya Alias Brinda Roshan Vs the… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to question the order passed on the discharge application, if so advised, in accordance with law.

¶41

Issue for consideration

Whether a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of proceedings is maintainable where the Magistrate has already rejected the petitioner's discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. and that order remains unchallenged. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

Once the Court below has, by a reasoned order, concluded that a prima facie case exists and charges are liable to be framed, that order continues to bind the petitioner unless and until set aside by a competent Court; while the order rejecting the discharge application remains unchallenged, the petitioner cannot pursue a parallel remedy by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

Under the scheme of the Cr.P.C., discharge and quashment are distinct remedies; where an order refusing discharge exists and has been allowed to attain finality, entertaining a Section 482 petition on the very same grounds would amount to permitting circumvention of the statutory procedure, and the inherent jurisdiction cannot override or nullify an unassailed trial Court order.

¶33

Key takeaways

The present petition is not maintainable; however, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to question the order passed on the discharge application, if so advised, in accordance with law.ratio¶34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 482 and 239 — Quashing of prosecution — Maintainability — Where the learned Magistrate had already rejected the petitioner's (accused No.3's) discharge application under Section 239 Cr.P.C., recording that sufficient material existed to frame charge, and that order was left unchallenged, a subsequent petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. read with Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution seeking quashing of the very same proceedings (CC No. 16753/2017, arising from FIR in Crime No.163/2017 of Koramangala Police Station) is not maintainable. Discharge and quashment are distinct remedies under the scheme of the Cr.P.C.; an unchallenged discharge-rejection order continues to bind the accused until set aside by a competent Court, and the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court cannot override or nullify a trial Court order that has not been assailed through proper legal channels — doing so on the same grounds would permit circumvention of the statutory procedure. Petition dismissed, with liberty reserved to question the discharge order in accordance with law.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:38088 WP No. 26550 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 26550 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. BRINDA BATTACHARYA @ BRINDA ROSHAN AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, D/O. SRI. DEBASHISH BATTACHARYA, NO.B 903, MAHESH TOWER, CHARKOP, SECTOR 2, PLOT NO.48, RDP-II, KANDIVALI (WEST), MUMBAI - 400 067.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAJKUMAR V.C, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KORAMANGALA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 095. REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

BHARATH KUMAR KUTHATI REGIONAL PASSPORT OFFICER, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU - 560 004.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP)

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:38088 WP No. 26550 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.3 IN C.C. NO. 16753/2017 ON THE FILE OF LEARNED 39TH ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU AT ANNEXURE-A BASED ON FIR IN CRIME NO.163/2017 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.. seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in CC No. 16753/2017 on the file of 39^th Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru.

¶25

The records disclose that the petitioner himself has produced the order passed by the learned Magistrate on

¶26

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38088 WP No. 26550 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

an application filed under Section 239 of the Cr.P.C., wherein the petitioner had sought discharge from the criminal proceedings. The Court below, after a detailed consideration of the material on record, including the charge-sheet and supporting documents, has recorded a finding that there exists sufficient material to frame charge against the present petitioner, who figures as accused No.3, along with accused Nos.1 and 2. Consequently, the application filed under Section 239 of Cr.P.C. came to be rejected.

¶29

Having suffered an order declining discharge, the petitioner has not chosen to challenge the same in the manner known to law. Instead, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., seeking quashing of the proceedings. This conduct is clearly impermissible. Once the Court below has, by a reasoned order, arrived at the conclusion that a prima facie case exists and charges are liable to be framed, the said order continues to bind the petitioner

¶30

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38088 WP No. 26550 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

unless and until it is set aside by a competent Court. As long as the order rejecting the discharge application remains unchallenged, the petitioner cannot be permitted to pursue a parallel remedy by invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.

¶33

The scheme of the Cr.P.C. makes it abundantly clear that discharge and quashment are distinct remedies. Where an order refusing discharge is already in existence, and the petitioner has allowed it to attain finality, entertaining a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. on the very same grounds would amount to permitting the petitioner to circumvent the statutory procedure. This Court, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, cannot override or nullify an order of the trial Court which has not been assailed through proper legal channels.

¶34