Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 16591 (KAR)

RAGHUNATHAREDDY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/5342/2023 · 2026-02-23

M Nagaprasanna

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11810 CRL.P No. 5342 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5342 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/ 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. RAGHUNATHAREDDY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS S/O VENKATA REDDY, 2. VENKATREDDY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O LATE BASIREDDY 3. SHIVAMMA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, W/O VENKATAREDDY, PETITIONER NO.1 TO 3 ARE RESIDENTS OF:NO.15/28 T. PUTLAVANDAPALLI VILLAGE, THUMMALA AMADAGURU MANDALAM, KADRI TALUK, ANANTHPUR DIST. ANDHRAPRADESH. 4. SHANTHAMMA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS W/O RAJAREDDY 5. RAJAREDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS PETITIONER NO.4 TO 5 ARE RESIDENTS OF: Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11810 CRL.P No. 5342 of 2023 DEVARANTIVARIPALLI VILLAGE, NALLACHERUVU MANDALAM, KADRI TALUK, ANANTHPUR DIST. ANDHRAPRADESH. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VENKATESH H N.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS POLICE INSPECTOR, CHANNAMANAKERE ACHUKATTU PS, BENGALURU - 560 085. 2. D VINEELA RANI W/O RAGHUNATHREDDY, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT NO.7, II MAIN ROAD, II CROSS, RANGAPPA LAYOUT, ITTAMADU, BSK III STAGE, BENGALURU CITY- 560 085. KARNATAKA. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. N. JAGADEESH, ADDL.SPP) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AT ANNEXURE A, FIR IN CR.NO.120/2017 DATED 31.03.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE B ON FILE OF II ADDL. ACMM 1ST RESPONDENT CHANNAMANAKERE ACHUKATTU POLICE AT BENGALURU AND CHARGE SHEET IN C.C.NO.10607/2018 VIDE ANNEXURE-C ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. CMM, BENGALURU, LAID AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 498A OF IPC AND SEC. 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT AND QUASH ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS OF C.C.NO.10607/2018 ON THE FILE OF II ACMM COURT AT BENGALURU AS ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11810 CRL.P No. 5342 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners are before the Court seeking the following prayers: i. "Call for entire records in C.C.No.10607/2018, from the file of II Addl. CMM, Court of Bengaluru and peruse the same. ii. Quash the complaint at Annexure-A, FIR in crime No.120/2017 dated 31.03.2017 vide Annexure-B on the file of II Addl. Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 1st respondent Channamanakere Achukattu police at Bengaluru and charge sheet in C.C.No.10607/2018 vide Annexure-C on the file of II Addl. cmm, Bengaluru, laid against the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 498(A) IPC and Section 3 and 4 of D.P.Act and quash all further proceedings of C.C.No.10607/2018 on the file of II Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Bengaluru as abuse of process of law. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11810 CRL.P No. 5342 of 2023 AND iii. Pass such other order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case and allow this petition in the interest of justice and equity." 2. The learned Additional SPP submits that the charges have been framed and the trial is in progress even before the filing of the present petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are 80 and 78 years old respectively and therefore, would not be in a position to attend the proceedings as they are residents of Andhra Pradesh State and there is no allegation against them. 4. In the light of the charges being framed in the case at hand and the trial being in progress, there is no warrant of interference with seeking quashment of the proceedings. 5. In the light of the advancing age of the petitioners, 80 and 78 respectively, I deem it appropriate to exempt them - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:11810 CRL.P No. 5342 of 2023 from appearance before the concerned Court on regular dates, unless the concerned court would specifically direct. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed. 7. In view of disposal of the petition, pending application if any, does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, the same is disposed of. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE JS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 239