Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/7406/2020 of OJO LAWAL Vs THE STATE on 5 October 2026
CNR: KAHC010378782020 NC: 2026:KHC:55133 CRL.P No. 7406 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7406 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. OJO LAWAL S/O LAWAL AGED 28 YEARS R/AT NO.55, 11TH MAIN
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.7406 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
1.
OJO LAWAL
S/O LAWAL
AGED 28 YEARS
R/AT NO.55, 11TH MAIN
3RD CROSS,
SIDEDAHALLI MAIN ROAD
NEAR SAGAR BAKERY
SESHADRINAGAR,
BANGALORE-560073.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. DILRAJ JUDE ROHIT SEQUEIRA, ADV.,)
AND:
1.
THE STATE
BY CHICKPET POLICE
BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560 001.
2.
UNION OF INDIA
REP. BY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
REP. BY SECRETARY
BY ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BANGALORE-560 001.
Digitally signed
by DEVIKA M
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
3.
SHEKAR S.R.
S/O RUDRAPPA
AGED 35 YEARS
R/AT NO.164, 1ST CROSS
1ST MAIN, KARNATAKA LAYOUT
KURUBARA HALLI
BANGALORE-560086.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MOHAMMED AYUB ALI, ADDL. SPP FOR R1
SRI. H. MALLAN GOUD, ADV., FOR R2
R3 SERVED)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO
QUASH THE COMPLAINT, FIR IN CR.NO.83/2015 PERTAINING
TO CHICKPET POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 419, 420, 465, 468, 471, 472, 201 AND 120(B) R/W 34 OF IPC AND
SECTION 14A AND 14B OF FOREIGNERS ACT AND SECTION
12(1)(a) AND 12(d) OF PASSPORT ACT AND SECTION 5 OF
FOREIGNERS REGISTRATION ACT, AND SECTION 66(c) AND
66(d) OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT AND THE ENTIRE
SPLIT UP CHARGE SHEET AS WELL AS ALL THE FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.6118/2019, PENDING ON THE FILE
OF I ADDL. C.M.M., BENGALURU, TO MEET THE ENDS OF
JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
When this matter was listed on the earlier occasion learned counsel for the petitioner was absent and even today also learned counsel for the petitioner is absent.
2. The charge sheet allegations against this petitioner is for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 419, 465, 468, 471, 472, 201, 120B, read with Section 34 of IPC and so also under Sections 14(a), 14(b) of Foreigners Act, and so also under Sections 12(1)(a), 12(d) of the Passport Act, and Section 5 of Foreigners Registration Act, and Section 66C, 66D of Information Technology Act.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that even though the passport and visa were expired, the petitioner overstayed in the country with an intention to make wrongful gain through online platforms like Quickr.com and OLX.com and induced the customers for old cars and second hand cars and different company LED TVs, laptops, iPhones, and two wheelers stating that they are going to sell the same for lesser price and
HC-KAR
also would get the job in reputed companies and giving online advertisement and also opened the bank account in different banks and hence, charge sheet is filed.
4. Though this petition was filed in the year 2020, learned counsel for the petitioner is also not pursuing the matter. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent- complainant and also the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the respondent-State would submit that even the petitioner has not co-operated for trial and spit up charge sheet is filed against the petitioner and also not co-operating before the trial Court.
5. When such being the case and when the matter is also not pursued for a period of six (06) years and as the petitioner is also not co-operating before the trial Court, question of exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. does not arise. In view of the same, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE BSR / List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28