Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR
Shankar Gowda K.M. S/o K.V. Madhu – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition seeks to quash charge sheet. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
ORDER :
1. In this petition, the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
“a. Quash the entire charge sheet dated 29.04.2023 in C.C.No.19418/2023 filed by the Respondent No.1 police pending on the file of IV ACJM at Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 420 , 406 r/w. 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE .
b. Pass any other order/s as it may deem fit to the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material on record.
3. Though respondent No.2 was served with notice, she has remained unrepresented and has not chosen to contest the petition.
4. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that respondent No.2-defacto complainant filed a private complaint against accused No.3 and seven other persons i.e., accused Nos.1, 2 and 4 to 8 complaining that they had committed offences punishable under Sections 420 , 383, 120B, 406 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. Learned magistrate having referred the matter for investigation, FIR in Crime No.235/2022 dated 02.09.2022 was registered against the petitioner
Inordinate delay in filing a complaint, lacking substantive evidence, warrants quashing of criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the court's process.
Inordinate delay of eight years in filing complaint in court itself would be a sufficient ground to quash proceedings.
The court emphasized that a ten-year delay in filing a complaint raises concerns of abuse of process and signifies a civil dispute rather than a criminal matter, warranting quashing of the proceeding....
Unexplained delay in lodging an FIR, combined with evidence of malafide intentions, can justify quashing of criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of the legal process.
The High Court affirmed that quashing of FIRs should be rare, and criminal and civil remedies can coexist; the trial court is authorized to direct police investigations under Section 156(3) despite p....
Malicious prosecution claims must show prima facie cases are unfounded; mere political allegations do not suffice to quash FIRs without substantive evidence.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
