Lakshmipathi Vs State by — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Lakshmipathi Vs State by — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Neither quashing nor acquittal granted; liberty reserved to petitioners to urge all contentions before the trial Court, and the trial Court directed to conclude proceedings within six months; pending IAs directed not to survive.

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.84/2020, the charge sheet in CC No.2898/2021 and the entire proceedings in CC No.2898/2021 (Ss. 504, 506, 384, 511 r/w 34 IPC, alleging extortion or otherwise against a PDO-complainant) should be quashed/terminated and the petitioners acquitted, under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS).

Court's answer

The petition stands disposed of, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to urge all contentions before the concerned (trial) Court; the quashing/termination prayer was not adjudicated.

Key takeaways

In view of the matter being of the year 2020, to infuse finality into the proceedings, the concerned Court was directed to conclude the proceedings in accordance with law within an outer limit of six months from receipt of the copy of the order.obiter¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S. 482 Cr.P.C. (now S. 528 BNSS) filed by a reporter and an editor of the paper 'Sathya Samara' seeking quashing of the FIR and complaint in Crime No.84/2020 of Kodigenahalli Police, the charge sheet in CC No.2898/2021, and the entire proceedings in CC No.2898/2021 for offences punishable under Ss. 504, 506, 384, 511 r/w 34 IPC, pending before the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri, arising from allegations of extortion or otherwise projected by the Panchayat Development Officer-complainant (Roopa R.). At admission stage, upon the HCGP stating that charges stood framed long ago and evidence had commenced (admitted by petitioners' counsel), M. Nagaprasanna, J. disposed of the petition without ruling on the quashing question, reserving liberty to the petitioners to urge all contentions before the trial Court, and, in view of the 2020 vintage of the matter, directed the concerned Court to conclude the proceedings in accordance with law within six months, with pending IAs not surviving.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:34150 CRL.P No. 16022 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16022 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

LAKSHMIPATHI

S/O LATE NARASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, REPORTER, SATHYA SAMARA PAPER, R/O TUMAKURU - 572 175.

NRUPATHUNGA, S/O VENKATARAVANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, EDITOR, SATHYA SAMARA PAPER, R/O NAGANNANA PALYA, SIRA GATE, TUMAKURU - 572 103.

…PETITIONERS

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka

(BY SRI. RAVIKUMARA B.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE BY

KODIGENAHALLI POLICE REP BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING PIN CODE - 560 001

ROOPA R., W/O MUTTARAJU B L AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS

PDO, KODAGADALA GRAM PANCHAYAT,

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:34150 CRL.P No. 16022 of 2025

HC-KAR

PURAVARA HOBLI, MADHUGIRI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 127

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. RASHMI PATEL, HCGP FOR R1)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.84/2020 VIDE ANNEXURE A AND B, CHARGE SHEET IN CC.NO.2898/2021 VIDE ANNEXURE-C AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CC.NO.2898/2021, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 504, 506, 384, 511 R/W 34 OF IPC, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, MADHUGIRI, VIDE ANNEXURE-D, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 504, 506, 384, 511 R/W 34 OF IPC AND TO ACQUIT THE PETITIONERS.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The Panchayat Development Officer is the complainant. Certain allegations of extortion or otherwise are projected against the petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the proceedings must be terminated.

The learned High Court Government Pleader on instructions would submit that the charges have been framed

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:34150 CRL.P No. 16022 of 2025

HC-KAR

long ago and evidence has commenced before the concerned Court, which is admitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners.

Therefore, reserving liberty to the petitioners to urge all contentions before the concerned Court, the petition stands

disposed .

In the light of the issue being of the year 2020, I deem it appropriate to infuse finality into the proceedings by directing the concerned Court to conclude the proceedings in accordance with law within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the order.

In view of disposal of the petition, pending IAs., if any, does not survive for consideration.

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

BK : List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8