Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 10430 (KAR)

RAMESH v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/16598/2025 · 2026-03-23

M Nagaprasanna

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16133 CRL.P No. 16598 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16598 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, C/O VENKATAPPA, NO.23/18, P M LAYOUT, NAGAVARA, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA - 560 045, AADHAR NO. 428833606849. 2. NAGESH, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, S/O VENKATAPPA, NO.23/18, P M LAYOUT, NAGAVARA, BANGALORE NORTH, BANGALORE - 560 045. AADHAR NO. 282070587961. 3. SRI.P.G.SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O GIRIYAPPA, NO.59, 3RD MAIN, VEERABHADRA NAGAR, BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE - 560 085. AADHAR NO.867651960685. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAMAPPA, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16133 CRL.P No. 16598 of 2025 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, SAMPIGEHALLI P.S., BANGALORE, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. S L V APARTMENT OWNERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MR.SRINIVASAIH, SY NO.85/1, NAGAVARA, BANGALORE - 560 045. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 (FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO A. QUASH FIR NO.329/2023 DATED 04.09.2023 (ANNEXURE A); B. QUASH CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.33303/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE ACMM 41 (ANNEXURE B); C. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2025 REJECTING 239 CRPC DISCHARGE (ANNEXURE D1); D. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.10.2025 FRAMING CHARGES (ANNEXURE D2). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:16133 CRL.P No. 16598 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Learned HCGP on instructions would submit that the charges have been framed and the petition would not be entertainable at this juncture. 2. In the light of the charges being framed, the entertainment of the petition will run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MINAKSHI BALA V. SUDHIR KUMAR1. 3. Reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail of such remedy, as is available in law, the petition stands disposed. All contentions are left open to be urged before the concerned Court. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 1 (1994) 4 SCC 142