SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 37029

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
M.NAGAPRASANNA
MR SELVAKUMAR U – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P 9719/2026



##PAGE1##

- 1 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:41149 CRL.P No. 9719 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010455982026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026

BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9719 OF 2026 BETWEEN:

1. MR. SELVAKUMAR U.

S/O I. ULAGANATHAN AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

R/AT J-6, 3RD CROSS, L.N. PURAM, SRIRAMPURAM,

BANGALORE - 560 021

2. MR. PARTHASARATHY S.

S/O V. SUBRAMANI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS

R/AT NO.447, GANDHI STREET, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR

DOORAVANINAGAR, Digitally signed by BANGALORE - 560 016 PADMAVATHI B K

Location: H igh Court of 3. MR. VIJAYKUMAR J.

Karnataka S/O JAGANNATH SASTRY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS

R/AT NO.252, 5TH B-1 MAIN, RAMCO LAYOUT, HAMPINAGAR

VIJAYNAGAR 2ND STAGE BANGALORE - 560 040

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. A D RAMANAND., ADVOCATE)

##PAGE2##

- 2 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:41149 CRL.P No. 9719 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010455982026

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THE INVESTIGATION OFFICER STATE BY

SUBRAMANYANAGAR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001

2. MR. G R VENKATESH S/O LATE G S RANGASWAMY

AGE ABOUT 78 YEARS, FORMER MANAGING DIRECTOR OF NOBEL

SOFTWARE SYSTEMS PVT LTD., NO. 543, 544, 545/6

4TH FLOOR, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 010

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R1

SRI. BALAKRISHNA M.R., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO a) QUASH THE ORDER DATED 27.06.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED III ACJM, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.845/2017 REJECTING THE PETITIONERS APPLICATION U/S 311 CR.P.C. OR U/S 348

BNSS, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.

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

##PAGE3##

- 3 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:41149 CRL.P No. 9719 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010455982026

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri. A.D. Ramananda, learned counsel appearing

for the petitioners, Smt. Waheeda M.M., learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1, Sri. Balakrishna M.R., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and have perused the

material on record.

2. The petitioners are before the Court calling in

question the rejection of an application filed under Section 348 of the BNSS, 2023, which is Section 311 of the earlier regime -

the Cr.P.C.

3. The petitioners were before the Court in

W.P.No.18272/2025 seeking expeditious disposal of the proceedings in C.C.No.845/2017 pending before the concerned Court. This Court, in terms of its order dated 20.01.2026,

passed the following order:

"Petitioner is before this Court seeking expeditious disposal for conclusion of the trial in C.C.No.845/2017.

##PAGE4##

- 4 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:41149 CRL.P No. 9719 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010455982026

2. The petitioner is the defacto complainant and the respondents are the accused.

3. The crime comes to be registered in the year

2015 and the charge sheet is filed in the year 2017 in C.C.No.845/2017. The petitioner is now before the Court on this score that about 17 adjournments already granted for the purpose of cross-examination of the accused and therefore, there has been a cross delay in conclusion of the trial and the offence being once punishable under Section 406 and 420 of Cr.P.C. The dates are also indicated in the petition. If the dates are noticed, it is the concerned Court has shown too much of lenience in

granting time after time without rhyme or reason.

4. In that light, I deem it appropriate to direct the concerned Court to conclude the trial within an outer limit of six (6) months from the date of receipt of the

copy of this order, if not earlier in accordance with law."

4. The petitioners have filed applications after

applications seeking adjournment on one pretext or the other is the allegation of the learned counsel, Sri. Balakrishna M.R.,

appearing for respondent No.2.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners at this

juncture would restrict their claim only to an application filed

##PAGE5##

- 5 -

HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:41149 CRL.P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top