Allowed¶52

Smt B C Shantha v. State by

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2026CRL.P/3099/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Speedy disposal direction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., High Court of Karnataka (M G Uma, J.), CRL.P No. 3099 of 2021, decided 12 January 2026. Keywords: split-up trial; accused Nos.5 and 7 unserved, residents of USA; non-application of mind by Trial Court; CC No.19101/2013; PCR No.18818/2007; IV Addl. CMM Bengaluru; offences under Sections 420, 405, 441, 463, 120A r/w 34 IPC; eight-month timeline for disposal; co-operation of parties in early disposal.

What did the court decide?

Criminal Petition allowed; Trial Court directed to take appropriate steps to hold trial against the petitioner and other accused already served and dispose of the case expeditiously, at least within eight months from the date of receipt of copy of the order. ¶52

Smt B C Shantha Vs State by — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds of urgency to allow the petition.

¶37

Court's answer

The court answered the framed point in the affirmative, i.e., the petitioner made out grounds of urgency to allow the petition.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

The Trial Court was required to apply its mind and proceed against the accused already served by splitting up the matter; taking no such steps showed non-application of mind.

¶46

Key takeaways

The Trial Court was directed to take appropriate steps to go on with the trial and dispose of the matter expeditiously, at least within a period of eight months.ratio¶49
The parties to the criminal case are required to co-operate with the Trial Court in early disposal of the matter.obiter¶55

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition under S.482 Cr.P.C. by accused No.3 in C.C.No.19101/2013 (IV Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru), arising from private complaint PCR No.18818/2007 filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4 against accused Nos.1 to 7 for offences under Sections 420, 405, 441, 463, 120A R/w Section 34 IPC. Accused Nos.5 and 7 remained unserved, said to be residents of the USA, and although the petitioner and other co-accused were served and appearing, the Trial Court neither split up the case nor proceeded further despite the case pending since 2013. Held: the Trial Court was required to apply its mind and proceed against the already-served accused by splitting up the matter; its inaction showed non-application of mind. Petition allowed; Trial Court directed to take appropriate steps to hold trial against the petitioner and other served accused and dispose of the matter expeditiously, at least within eight months from receipt of copy of the order; parties directed to co-operate. (M G Uma, J.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1703 CRL.P No. 3099 of 2021

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3099 OF 2021

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. B.C. SHANTHA W/O C.P. BADAMI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS RESIDING AT BADAMI BUILDINGS OPP. SANGAM THEATRE, RAILWAY STATION ROAD, RANIBENNUR - 581 115

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. C.S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STATE BY POLICE INSPECTOR BASAVESHWARANAGARA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560 001

¶16

SMT. SUNITA PATIL W/O LATE P H PATIL AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS

¶17

MISS SANJANA P PATIL D/O LATE P H PATIL AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS

¶18

MISS SAMEEKSHA PATIL D/O LATE P H PATIL AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS

¶19

ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.351/B, 2^ND STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD,

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:1703 CRL.P No. 3099 of 2021

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

MAHALAKSHMIPURAM BENGALURU - 560 086 NOW RESIDING AT #514, 1^ST D CROSS, 3^RD STAGE, 4^TH BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGARA BENGALURU - 560 079

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY .R., HCGP FOR R1

¶26

SMT. KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2-4)

¶27

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ISSUE DIRECTIONS TO THE HONOURABLE COURT TO DISPOSAL OFF THE CASE IN C.C.NO.19101/2013 WITHIN 6 MONTHS PENDING ON THE FILE OF IV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.

¶28

THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioner being accused No.3 in CC No.19101/2013 on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 405, 441, 463, 120A R/w Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') is seeking direction to the Trial Court to dispose of the criminal case expeditiously.

¶32

Heard Sri. C.S.Hiremath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Rangaswamy R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Smt. Krutika

¶33

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:1703 CRL.P No. 3099 of 2021

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Raghavan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and perused the materials on record.

¶36

In view of the contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶37

"Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds of urgency to allow the petition?

¶38

My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for the following:

¶39

REASONS

¶40

Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have filed the private complaint in PCR No.18818/2007 against accused Nos.1 to 7 alleging commission of the offences as referred to above. Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, summoned the accused by registering CC No.19101/2013. Petitioner being accused No.3 contends that Trial Court being unmindful of the fact that the case is of the year 2013, has not bothered to dispose off the same and has repeatedly issued summons to co-accused.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:1703 CRL.P No. 3099 of 2021

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

It is stated that accused Nos.5 and 7 could not be served as they are said to be the residents of the United States of America. Inspite of that, the Trial Court has not taken any steps to proceed with the matter.

¶45

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 supported the contention of petitioner-accused No.3 and contend that the Trial Court could split-up the case against accused Nos.5 and 7, who are not yet traced and could proceed with the other accused, who are already served.

¶46

I find considerable force in the contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The complaint is of the year 2013 and the criminal case came to be registered in the same year. Petitioner being accused No.3 and some other co-accused were served and they are made to appear before the Court, while accused Nos.5 and 7 are still not served with summons. The Trial Court is required to apply its mind and proceed with the matter against the accused, who are already served by splitting up the matter. No such steps are taken by the Trial Court, which

¶47

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1703 CRL.P No. 3099 of 2021

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

shows non-application of mind. Therefore, the Trial Court is directed to take appropriate steps to go on with the trial and to dispose of the matter expeditiously at least within a period of eight months.

¶50

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶53

(ii) The Trial Court is directed to take appropriate

¶54

steps to hold trial against the petitioner and other accused who are already served, expeditiously at least within eight months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶55

It is needless to say that the parties to the criminal case are required to co-operate with the Trial Court in early disposal of the matter.

¶56

SD/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶57

BH CT:VS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31

Smt B C Shantha v. State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt B C Shantha v. State by

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

Sri K N Shantha Kumar Vs Sri Mallikarjunjappa

Shri H L Ramesh Vs Karnataka Lokayukta

Preetham Vs the State of Karnataka

G T Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Sri Lakshmi Properties, Vs Additional Registrar of Co-Operative Societies

Sri. Shankara Gaud Vs M/S. Peregrine Phosphate (P) Ltd.