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

HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
SMT KAMALAMMA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRL.P/9744/2021



1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

CRIMINAL PETITION No.9744 OF 2021

BETWEEN

1.

Smt. Kamalamma,

W/o Mahadevu,

Aged 63 years,

R/o No.77, LIG, 2nd Stage,

Kuvempu Nagar,

Mysuru-577029.

2.

Sri Ramachandra,

S/o Krishnappa,

Aged 45 years,

No.27, 2nd Cross,

Giridarshini Layout,

AAlanahalli, Mysuru-577029.

3.

Sri Papanna,

S/o Late Chikkegowda,

Aged 61 years,

No.262 MUDA Employees Layout,

Dattagahalli, Mysuru-577029.

…Petitioners

(By Sri S.P.Shankar, Senior Counsel, for

Smt. Mamata Guru Rao Kulkarni, Advocate)

AND

1.

State of Karnataka

Udayagiri Police Station,

2

Station House Officer,

Mysuru City-577029.

Represented by SPP,

High Court of Karnataka,

Bengaluru-560001.

2.

Nischay N.K.,

S/o H.Narayana

Special Tahsildar

Muda JLB Road,

Lakshmipuram

Mysuru-577029.

…Respondents

(By Sri Rohith B.J., HCGP for R1)

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C praying to quash the proceedings and the order

dated 10.09.2021 in Cr.No.8/2021 by the II Additional Civil

Judge

(Jr.Dn.)

and

JMFC,

Mysuru

for

the

offence

punishable under Sections 417, 419, 420 and 468 of IPC.

This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this

day, the court made the following:

ORDER

Heard Sri S.P.Shankar, learned senior counsel,

for the petitioners.

2. Petitioners have sought quashing of FIR in

Crime No. 8/2021 registered by Udayagiri Police

Station, Mysuru, for the offences punishable under

3

sections 417, 419, 420 and 468 of IPC. The second

respondent initiated criminal action by lodging an FIR

on the allegations that initial allotment of site No.22

by MUDA in the name of Kamalamma was to a benami

person. It appears that subsequently Kamalamma

executed a sale deed and the second petitioner is the

third purchaser. Of course sale deeds are produced.

But, since it is the clear case of the second respondent

that the site was allotted benami in the name of a

person by name Kamalamma, the matter requires

investigation by police. Without expressing anything

on the merits, petition is dismissed giving liberty to

the petitioners to challenge the charge sheet, if it is

filed. Consequently, I.A.1/2021 stands disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ckl

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top