Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 5713 (KAR)

SMT SARASWATI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/102086/2024 · 2025-01-21

Hemant Chandangoudar

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1000 CRL.P No. 102086 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102086 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SMT. SARASWATI W/O. K. NAGARAJ, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. SOCIAL SERVICE, R/O. GUNDURU, NOW AT BEHIND CHANDRAPPA HOSPITAL, GANGAVATI, TQ. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA A. PUROHIT, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KARATAGI POLICE STATION, R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. 2. SMT. SHANTAMMA W/O. SHIVAPPA HOSAGOUDAR, AGE. 49 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. RAMANAGAR NAVALI ROAD, KARATAGI, TQ. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK T.KATTIMANI, ADDL. GOVT. ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CC NO.117/2017 ON THE FILE OF ADDL.CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, GANGAVATI IN CRIME NO. 188/2015 P.S.I. KARATAGI FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 420 OF IPC, VIDE ANNEXURE-D IN SO FA AS PETITIONER/A2 HEREIN CONCERNED, AS NULL AND VOID. B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.01.22 15:00:17 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1000 CRL.P No. 102086 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent No.1. 2. The petitioner challenges the proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 420 of IPC primarily on the ground that in the cross examination P.W.1 has stated that she had handed over the gold articles to accused No.1 and 3 and not to the accused No.2. Therefore, the question as to whether the petitioner-accused No.2 had connived with other accused in cheating the complainant is the matter which requires to be adjudicated by the Trial Court. 3. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to raise all the grounds urged therein before the Trial Court. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR Ct:vh