Sri Siddalingaiah vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 10243 Kant

                              1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF JULY 2022

                          BEFORE:

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1470 OF 2019

BETWEEN:

SRI. SIDDALINGAIAH,
S/O LATE DHANJAYYA,
AGED ABOUT 87 YEARS,
RETIRED ARMY,
R/O NO.2093, HOLEGERE DODDI CROSS,
CHANNAPATNA ROAD, HALAGURU
MALAVALLI-TQ, MANDYA-DISTRICT-571422.
                                            ...   APPELLANT
[BY SRI. HALLI SHANTAPPA BASAPPA., ADVOCATE]

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       HALAGUR POLICE STATION, MANDYA
       MANDYA-DISTRICT
       REPT BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

2.     CHIKKA KARIAIAH
       S/O LATE SIDDAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS

3.     KEMPAMMA @ HUCHANARASAMMA
       W/O CHIKKA KARIAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS

4.     BASAVARAJU @ SURESH
       S/O CHIKKA KARIAIAH
       AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS

       ALL ARE R/O THALEHALLI VILLAGE
       KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI-TQ,
       MANDYA DISTRICT.
                                         ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. R.D.RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R-1/STATE)
                              2




                            ***

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION.378(4)
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
DATED 13.05.2019, PASSED BY THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC,
MALAVALLI      IN   C.C.NO.284/2012,    ACQUITTING     THE
RESPONDENTS/ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 427, 447, 506
R/W 34 OF IPC. AND ETC.

     THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

Learned HCGP takes notice for respondent/state.

This appeal is preferred by the complainant against

the judgment and order of acquittal passed by the Court

of Principal Civil Judge & JMFC, Malavalli in

CC No.284/2012 whereby, the learned Magistrate vide

judgment dated 13.05.2019 has acquitted accused

Nos.1, 2 and 4 of offenses punishable under Sections

427, 447, 506 read with 34 of IPC.

2. This appeal is preferred under Section 378(4)

of Cr.P.C. Admittedly, the police filed charge sheet

against the accused-respondents and this is not a case

arising out of a private complaint and therefore, appeal is

not maintainable under Section 378(4) of Cr.P.C. Be that

as it may, this appeal is filed on 13.08.2019. Inspite of

granting sufficient time, the office objections are not

complied. There is no purpose in keeping the appeal

pending.

Appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

DS/VS