Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.NAGAPRASANNA
Mahimahesh, S/o. Late K.G. Puttannaiah – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, Represented By Bilikere Police Station, Hunsuru, Represented By State Public Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4 are at the doors of this Court calling in question the proceedings in CC.No.1517/2021 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC.
2. Heard Sri V.B.Siddaramaiah, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.
3. The complainant though served long ago, remains unrepresented even today.
4. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows:-
Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 purchase the subject properties through a registered sale deed dated 09.01.1997, and get an order of conversion and develop it into a layout and on 11.05.2011. When the khatha is sought to be transferred at the hands of the Tahsildar, the Tahsildar endorses that the khatha cannot be changed since the land has already been converted.
4.1. When things stood thus, after 23 years of sale, a family member of the vendor of petitioner Nos.1 and 2 registers a complaint on 18.11.2020, which becomes a crime in Crime No.292/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 354, 506, 504 read with 34 of the IPC.
4.2. The Police, after investigation, file a chargesheet dropping all the ot
The allegations under Sections 504 and 506 IPC require specific evidentiary elements; prosecution should not misuse criminal law for personal vendettas.
Vague or farfetched allegations should be scrutinized, and if found frivolous, they should be quashed. Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC should not be loosely invoked without proper justification.
The court established that for an offence to be punishable under Section 306 of the IPC, there must be a clear mens rea and a direct or active act by the accused that led to the suicide. It also clar....
The judgment establishes that mere abusive language does not suffice to constitute an intentional insult under Section 504 IPC, and that the essential elements of criminal intimidation must be clearl....
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the allegations must fulfill the essential ingredients for the alleged offenses under the IPC sections mentioned, and the court may quash o....
The main legal point established is that the specific elements and requirements of each offence under Sections 441, 448, 504, and 506 IPC must be met for the charges to be sustained.
A mere breach of contract does not amount to cheating under Section 420 IPC unless there is evidence of dishonest intention from the inception of the transaction.
Criminal liability under IPC sections requires clear evidence of entrustment and dishonest intention, which were absent in this case.
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
