Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 18907 Kant
Judgement Date : 29 July, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:29896
WP No. 19051 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO. 19051 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MAHAMMED MUSTHAK,
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
S/O ABDUL AJIJ,
R/O IFA 3-472(7A), JINATH MANZIL,
DEKKADU SUBHASH NAGARA,
MUNNURU, DAKSHINA KANNADA
DISTRICT - 572 101.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY KARKALA TOWN P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY
Digitally signed STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
by NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH HIGH COURT BUILDING,
COURT OF
KARNATAKA BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI. K. MUSTHAFA HASANABBA,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
S/O LATE HASANABBA,
R/O MOTHER CARE HOUSE,
BAILOOR POST, KOUDUR VILLAGE,
KARKALA TALUK - 572 101.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. THEJESH P, HCGP FOR R1)
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:29896
WP No. 19051 of 2024
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C
PRAYING TO A) QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN CRIMINAL
CASE NO. 234/2023 19.11.2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, AT KARKALA, FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324, 504, 506
AND 511 OF IPC (ANNEXURE-A). IN SO FAR AS PETITIONER
CONCERNED AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Heard the learned counsel, Shri K.Prasanna Shetty,
appearing for the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is before this Court calling in
question the proceedings in C.C.No.234 of 2023 on the file
of the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Karkala registered
for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504,
506 and 511 of IPC.
3. The learned High Court Government Pleader, on
instructions would submit that the charges have already
NC: 2024:KHC:29896
been framed by the concerned Court and the matter is set
at the stage of evidence.
4. If the charges are framed and the matter is set
at the stage of evidence, this Court would not entertain
the petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to put the clock
back to the stage of registration of the FIR. Further, any
interference now would run foul of the Judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of Minakshi Bala Vs. Sudhir
Kumar reported in (1994) 4 SCC 142. The petition is
thus disposed, reserving liberty to the petitioners to urge
all the contentions before the concerned Court at the
appropriate time.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
DH
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!