Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 23895 (KAR)

K G LAKSHME GOWDA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/5308/2021 · 2025-02-19

K Natarajan

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7488 CRL.P No. 5308 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5308 OF 2021 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-) BETWEEN: K. G. LAKSHME GOWDA S/O LATE GIDDE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, KADE GARJE VILLAGE, AREHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANDEEPA S H., ADVOCATE (VC) ) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HALLEBEEDU P S REPRESENTED BY SPL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 009. 2. JAYARAM S/O HANUMANTHE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, MHAVANOORU VILLAGE, HOLENARASIPURA TALUK, HASSAN - 573 211. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. ANITHA GIRISH, ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:22.03.2021 IN CRL.RP.NO.162/2018 PASSED BY THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, HASSAN AND ALSO MAY BE PLEASED Digitally signed by VEDAVATHI A K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7488 CRL.P No. 5308 of 2021 TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:02.03.2018 PASSED IN CR.NO.212/2010 BY THE CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., BELURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the petitioner/complainant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in CC.No. 162/2018 arising out of in crime No. 212/2010 registered by the Halebeedu police, Hassan District and charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Section 279, 337 of IPC. 2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and HCGP for the respondent/state. The counsel for the respondent No.2 served, unrepresented. 3. The case of the prosecution is that there was an accident between the petitioner vehicle and the vehicle of the respondent No.2 on 31.10.2010 at 12.30 P.M. The - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7488 CRL.P No. 5308 of 2021 petitioner said to be traveling in the motor cycle, where as the respondent No.2's car bearing No.KA-42-N-6363 came and dashed on the road by over taking the K.S.R.T.C bus, due to which the petitioner sustained injury. He has also lodged the complaint against the driver of the Innova Car and the driver of the Innova car also filed the complaint against this petitioner. The case and counter case said to be registered. Where as the police have filed B report on the complaint filed by this petitioner. However, the police have filed the charge sheet against this petitioner in respect of Crime No.212/2010, which is under challenge. 4. On careful reading of the charge sheet as well as order and the B report filed by the police. The B reported was accepted by the Trial Court and the same was upheld by the District Judge. However, the learned counsel submits that the charge sheet came to be filed at the belated stage. On perusal of the records where the FIR came to be registered on 31.10.2010, where as charge sheet was filed on 22.06.2012, after lapse of 1 year 8 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7488 CRL.P No. 5308 of 2021 months. As per Section 468 of Cr.P.C., when the offences are punishable with 6 months, the time limit for taking cognizance is 1 year, as per Section 468(2)(b) of Cr.P.C., the offences punishable within 1 year, the cognizance shall be taken within 1 year. The alleged offences punishable with 279 of IPC., six month and Rs.1000/- fine and 337 of IPC is 6 months and Rs.1000/- fine within one year punishment. Therefore, as per Section 468(2)(b) of Cr.P.C. cognizance ought to have taken within 1 year from the date of commission of offence, where as charge sheet filed belatedly on 22.06.2022, after lapse of more than 1 year 8 months. Such being the case very taking cognizance itself is barred by limitation. Therefore, the question of taking cognizance by the Magistrate against the petitioner not sustainable under law and continue the proceeding against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law. Accordingly, petition is allowed. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7488 CRL.P No. 5308 of 2021 Criminal proceeding against the petitioner in CC.No. 162/2018 arising out of in crime No. 212/2010, registered by the Halebeedu police, Hassan District, is hereby quashed. Sd/- (K.NATARAJAN) JUDGE SRK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 4 CT:SK