Full Judgment Text
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1703
CRL.P No. 3099 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3099 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SMT. B.C. SHANTHA
W/O C.P. BADAMI
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
RESIDING AT BADAMI BUILDINGS
OPP. SANGAM THEATRE,
RAILWAY STATION ROAD,
RANIBENNUR - 581 115
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C.S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY
POLICE INSPECTOR
BASAVESHWARANAGARA
POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. SMT. SUNITA PATIL
W/O LATE P H PATIL
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
3.
MISS SANJANA P PATIL
D/O LATE P H PATIL
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
4. MISS SAMEEKSHA PATIL
D/O LATE P H PATIL
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.351/B,
ND
2 STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
Digitally
signed by
NANDINI B G
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1703
CRL.P No. 3099 of 2021
HC-KAR
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
BENGALURU - 560 086
NOW RESIDING AT #514,
ST RD TH
1 D CROSS, 3 STAGE, 4 BLOCK,
BASAVESHWARANAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 079
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY .R., HCGP FOR R1
SMT. KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2-4)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ISSUE
DIRECTIONS TO THE HONOURABLE COURT TO DISPOSAL OFF THE
CASE IN C.C.NO.19101/2013 WITHIN 6 MONTHS PENDING ON THE
FILE OF IV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner being accused No.3 in CC No.19101/2013
on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 405, 441, 463, 120A R/w Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') is seeking direction to
the Trial Court to dispose of the criminal case expeditiously.
2. Heard Sri. C.S.Hiremath, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri. Rangaswamy R., learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Smt. Krutika
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1703
CRL.P No. 3099 of 2021
HC-KAR
Raghavan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and
perused the materials on record.
3. In view of the contentions urged by learned counsel
for both the parties, the point that would arise for my
consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner has made out any
grounds of urgency to allow the petition?
My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for
the following:
REASONS
4. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have filed the private
complaint in PCR No.18818/2007 against accused Nos.1 to 7
alleging commission of the offences as referred to above.
Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, summoned
the accused by registering CC No.19101/2013. Petitioner being
accused No.3 contends that Trial Court being unmindful of the
fact that the case is of the year 2013, has not bothered to
dispose off the same and has repeatedly issued summons to
co-accused.
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1703
CRL.P No. 3099 of 2021
HC-KAR
5. It is stated that accused Nos.5 and 7 could not be
served as they are said to be the residents of the United States
of America. Inspite of that, the Trial Court has not taken any
steps to proceed with the matter.
6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1
supported the contention of petitioner-accused No.3 and
contend that the Trial Court could split-up the case against
accused Nos.5 and 7, who are not yet traced and could
proceed with the other accused, who are already served.
7. I find considerable force in the contention taken by
the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the respondents. The complaint is of the year 2013 and the
criminal case came to be registered in the same year. Petitioner
being accused No.3 and some other co-accused were served
and they are made to appear before the Court, while accused
Nos.5 and 7 are still not served with summons. The Trial Court
is required to apply its mind and proceed with the matter
against the accused, who are already served by splitting up the
matter. No such steps are taken by the Trial Court, which
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1703
CRL.P No. 3099 of 2021
HC-KAR
shows non-application of mind. Therefore, the Trial Court is
directed to take appropriate steps to go on with the trial and to
dispose of the matter expeditiously at least within a period of
eight months.
8. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
allowed.
(i) The Criminal Petition is
(ii) The Trial Court is directed to take appropriate
steps to hold trial against the petitioner and other
accused who are already served, expeditiously at least
within eight months from the date of receipt of copy of
this order.
It is needless to say that the parties to the criminal case
are required to co-operate with the Trial Court in early disposal
of the matter.
SD/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
BH
CT:VS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31
NC: 2026:KHC:1703
CRL.P No. 3099 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3099 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
SMT. B.C. SHANTHA
W/O C.P. BADAMI
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
RESIDING AT BADAMI BUILDINGS
OPP. SANGAM THEATRE,
RAILWAY STATION ROAD,
RANIBENNUR - 581 115
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. C.S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY
POLICE INSPECTOR
BASAVESHWARANAGARA
POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDINGS
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. SMT. SUNITA PATIL
W/O LATE P H PATIL
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
3.
MISS SANJANA P PATIL
D/O LATE P H PATIL
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
4. MISS SAMEEKSHA PATIL
D/O LATE P H PATIL
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NO.351/B,
ND
2 STAGE, WEST OF CHORD ROAD,
Digitally
signed by
NANDINI B G
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1703
CRL.P No. 3099 of 2021
HC-KAR
MAHALAKSHMIPURAM
BENGALURU - 560 086
NOW RESIDING AT #514,
ST RD TH
1 D CROSS, 3 STAGE, 4 BLOCK,
BASAVESHWARANAGARA
BENGALURU - 560 079
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RANGASWAMY .R., HCGP FOR R1
SMT. KRUTIKA RAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2-4)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO ISSUE
DIRECTIONS TO THE HONOURABLE COURT TO DISPOSAL OFF THE
CASE IN C.C.NO.19101/2013 WITHIN 6 MONTHS PENDING ON THE
FILE OF IV ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner being accused No.3 in CC No.19101/2013
on the file of the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 420, 405, 441, 463, 120A R/w Section 34 of the
Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') is seeking direction to
the Trial Court to dispose of the criminal case expeditiously.
2. Heard Sri. C.S.Hiremath, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Sri. Rangaswamy R., learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1. Smt. Krutika
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1703
CRL.P No. 3099 of 2021
HC-KAR
Raghavan, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and
perused the materials on record.
3. In view of the contentions urged by learned counsel
for both the parties, the point that would arise for my
consideration is:
"Whether the petitioner has made out any
grounds of urgency to allow the petition?
My answer to the above point is in the 'Affirmative' for
the following:
REASONS
4. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 have filed the private
complaint in PCR No.18818/2007 against accused Nos.1 to 7
alleging commission of the offences as referred to above.
Learned Magistrate took cognizance of the offence, summoned
the accused by registering CC No.19101/2013. Petitioner being
accused No.3 contends that Trial Court being unmindful of the
fact that the case is of the year 2013, has not bothered to
dispose off the same and has repeatedly issued summons to
co-accused.
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1703
CRL.P No. 3099 of 2021
HC-KAR
5. It is stated that accused Nos.5 and 7 could not be
served as they are said to be the residents of the United States
of America. Inspite of that, the Trial Court has not taken any
steps to proceed with the matter.
6. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and the
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1
supported the contention of petitioner-accused No.3 and
contend that the Trial Court could split-up the case against
accused Nos.5 and 7, who are not yet traced and could
proceed with the other accused, who are already served.
7. I find considerable force in the contention taken by
the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for
the respondents. The complaint is of the year 2013 and the
criminal case came to be registered in the same year. Petitioner
being accused No.3 and some other co-accused were served
and they are made to appear before the Court, while accused
Nos.5 and 7 are still not served with summons. The Trial Court
is required to apply its mind and proceed with the matter
against the accused, who are already served by splitting up the
matter. No such steps are taken by the Trial Court, which
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:1703
CRL.P No. 3099 of 2021
HC-KAR
shows non-application of mind. Therefore, the Trial Court is
directed to take appropriate steps to go on with the trial and to
dispose of the matter expeditiously at least within a period of
eight months.
8. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the
affirmative and proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
allowed.
(i) The Criminal Petition is
(ii) The Trial Court is directed to take appropriate
steps to hold trial against the petitioner and other
accused who are already served, expeditiously at least
within eight months from the date of receipt of copy of
this order.
It is needless to say that the parties to the criminal case
are required to co-operate with the Trial Court in early disposal
of the matter.
SD/-
(M G UMA)
JUDGE
BH
CT:VS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31