Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 51706 (KAR)

MR VIJAY SAVANUR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/12693/2025 · 2025-09-16

Sachin Shankar Magadum

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37518 CRL.P No. 12693 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12693 OF 2025 BETWEEN: MR VIJAY SAVANUR S/O LATE KRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.109, 1 ST FLOOR, 6TH CROSS, R K LAYOUT, PADMANABHANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 070. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. DILIP KUMAR I S., ADVOCATE) AND: STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHANNAMANAKERE ACHU KATTU POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001. &RESPONDENT (BY SRI. RAHUL RAI, HCGP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 4th ACJM, BENGALURU TO EXPEDITE THE PROCEEDING IN CC.NO.16796/2018, FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 406 AND 420 OF IPC AND COMPLETE THE TRIAL IN A TIME LIMIT AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37518 CRL.P No. 12693 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed by the complainant seeking mandamus against the 4th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, to expedite the proceedings pending in CC.No.16796/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC. 2. The petitioner/complainant had lodged a complaint alleging that the accused had committed offences of cheating, fraud, and criminal breach of trust, and accordingly filed the complaint on 02.11.2017. The Investigating Officer, upon completing the investigation, filed a charge sheet against the respondent/accused on 15.04.2018. The Court below took cognizance of the offence on 22.06.2018. Despite the lapse of more than seven years, the proceedings before the trial Court are still shown to be at the stage of hearing on the discharge application filed by the accused. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that the accused is being permitted to - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37518 CRL.P No. 12693 of 2025 protract the trial, which has caused and continues to cause grave prejudice to the complainant. Consequently, the present petition has been filed seeking a direction to the learned Judge to expedite the trial and conclude the proceedings within a period of six months. 3. Upon careful examination of the records, this Court is of the view that while the matter warrants judicial intervention, only a limited direction is necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. Though the charge sheet was filed in 2018 and the Court below took cognizance on 22.06.2018, the trial proceedings cannot be indefinitely delayed by the pendency of the discharge application filed by the accused. It is evident that the State has already filed its objections to the discharge application and there exists a contest on the matter. Under such circumstances, the learned Judge was duty- bound to decide the discharge application expeditiously. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37518 CRL.P No. 12693 of 2025 4. There appears to be a degree of inadvertent delay or laxity on the part of the learned Judge in not disposing of the discharge application, which directly affects the complainant9s fundamental right to secure early and effective justice in accordance with law. Prolonged inaction in adjudicating such preliminary applications results in unnecessary delay and undermines the efficacy of the criminal justice system. Therefore, this is a fit case where a limited, yet necessary, judicial direction is warranted to ensure the expeditious conduct of proceedings without encroaching upon the trial Court9s jurisdiction. 5. Accordingly, this Court passes the following order: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed in part. (ii) The learned Magistrate is directed to decide the pending discharge application - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37518 CRL.P No. 12693 of 2025 forthwith, after giving notice to both parties, and proceed with the trial in accordance with law without any unnecessary delay. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 81