Karnataka High CourtCriminal Procedure and EvidenceCriminal Law

26 Accused Withdraw Karnataka HC Plea To Quash Davanagere Case, Retain Liberty To Raise Defences At Trial

SHIVANANDA Rv.STATE OF KARNATAKA

26 Accused Withdraw Karnataka HC Plea To Quash Davanagere Case, Retain Liberty To Raise Defences At Trial. SHIVANANDA R vs STATE OF KARNATAKA. Karnataka High Court. LawLens
The LawLens card for this judgmentXLinkedInWhatsApp

In brief

The question

1. Whether the criminal proceedings and the Magistrate’s cognizance order should be quashed

The court held

The petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioners to raise all available contentions and defences before the Trial Court.

It also directed

The Court made no determination on the merits of the quashing grounds.

In view of the dismissal, the pending applications were also dismissed as not surviving for consideration.

01Facts

The 26 petitioners sought to quash the criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 5974/2024, arising from Crime No. 12/2024 of Extension Police Station, Davangere, and the Magistrate’s order taking cognizance.

p. 8

The case involved alleged offences under Sections 341, 143, 149 and 283 of the Indian Penal Code.

p. 8

After hearing submissions, petitioners’ counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition, with liberty to raise all available contentions and defences before the Trial Court.

p. 8

02Issues

i.1. Whether the criminal proceedings and the Magistrate’s cognizance order should be quashed

p. 8

ii.2. Whether the petition could be dismissed as withdrawn while reserving the petitioners’ liberty to raise their contentions and defences before the Trial Court

p. 8

03Law Applied

The petition invoked Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, stated also as Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, seeking the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings and cognizance order.

p. 8

The alleged offences were under Sections 341, 143, 149 and 283 of the Indian Penal Code.

p. 8

The Court did not state or apply any substantive legal test or precedent concerning these provisions; it disposed of the matter on the petitioners’ request to withdraw.

p. 8

Provisions in the judgment · 6 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 Section 482

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 528

Indian Penal Code, 1860 Section 341Section 143Section 149Section 283

04Reasoning

The Court did not assess the merits of the allegations, the legality of the cognizance order, or whether the proceedings met the test for quashing.

p. 8

Instead, it accepted counsel’s request to withdraw the petition and expressly reserved the petitioners’ liberty to urge their contentions and defences before the Trial Court.

p. 8

The pending applications were consequently treated as not surviving for consideration.

p. 9

05Holding

The petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioners to raise all available contentions and defences before the Trial Court.

p. 8

The Court made no determination on the merits of the quashing grounds.

p. 8

In view of the dismissal, the pending applications were also dismissed as not surviving for consideration.

p. 9
Karnataka High Court

Original Court PDF

SHIVANANDA RvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA

Karnataka High Court · November 12, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment