Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/11652/2024 of SMT ANURADHA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANDYA WEST P.S on 21 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010144342025 NC: 2026:KHC:37470 CRL.P No. 3419 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 11652 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3419 OF 2025 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11652 OF
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3419 OF 2025
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 11652 OF 2024
IN CRL.P No. 3419/2025
BETWEEN:
1.
SHIVALINGA
S/O SHIVARAMU,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
RESIDENTS OF: 4TH CROSS,
V.V. NAGARA, KALLAHALLI,
MANDYA CITY,
DISTRICT MANDYA – 571 401.
2.
SRIDHAR
S/O SHIVARAMU,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDENTS OF: 4TH CROSS,
V.V. NAGARA, KALLAHALLI,
MANDYA CITY,
DISTRICT MANDYA – 571 401.
3.
SRIKANTH S.,
S/O LATE SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
RESIDENTS OF: 4TH CROSS,
Digitally signed
by
PADMAVATHI B
K
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
V.V. NAGARA, KALLAHALLI,
MANDYA CITY,
DISTRICT MANDYA – 571 401.
4.
CHATEN @ CHETHAN KUMAR
S/O LATE SHIVANNA,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
RESIDENTS OF: 4TH CROSS,
V.V. NAGARA, KALLAHALLI,
MANDYA CITY,
DISTRICT MANDYA – 571 401.
5.
SHIVAPRASAD M.S.,
S/O SOMANNA L.,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
RESIDENTS OF: 4TH CROSS,
V.V. NAGARA, KALLAHALLI
MANDYA CITY,
DISTRICT MANDYA – 571 401.
6.
RAJU K., @ KALINGAPPA RAJA @
KALINGANAPPANA RAJA
S/O LATE KALINGEGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
RESIDENTS OF: 3RD CROSS,
RAMAMANDIRA ROAD,
OLD KALLAHALLI, MANDYA CITY,
DISTRICT MANDYA – 571 401.
7.
SUMANTH S.,
S/O SHIVAMANJU,
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS,
RESIDENTS OF: 10TH CROSS,
V.V. NAGAR, KALLAHALLI,
HC-KAR
MANDYA CITY,
DISTRICT MANDYA – 571 401.
8.
SANDEEP S.,
S/O SHIVAMANJU
AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,
RESIDENTS OF: 10TH CROSS,
V.V. NAGAR, KALLAHALLI,
MANDYA CITY,
DISTRICT MANDYA – 571 401.
9.
HARSHA S., @ HARSHAWARDHANA
S/O SHANKAR
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
RESIDENTS OF: 4TH CROSS, V.V. NAGAR,
KALLAHALLI, MANDYA CITY,
DISTRICT MANDYA – 571 401.
10.
CHANDAN @ CHANDAN KUMAR.M.P.
S/O PARASHURAM
AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS,
RESIDENTS OF 4TH CROSS, V.V. NAGAR,
KALLAHALLI, MANDYA CITY,
DISTRICT MANDYA – 571 401.
11.
MANJUNATHA.M.B. @ MANJAPPA
S/O BASAVARAJU M. N,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
RESIDENTS OF: 4TH CROSS, V.V. NAGAR,
KALLAHALLI, MANDYA CITY,
DISTRICT MANDYA – 571 401.
12.
ABHISHEK S.,
S/O SHANKAR,
HC-KAR
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
RESIDENTS OF: 4TH CROSS, V.V. NAGAR,
KALLAHALLI, MANDYA CITY,
DISTRICT MANDYA – 571 401.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MAHESH KUMAR M.N., FOR
SRI VEERANNA G. TIGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
MANDYA WEST POLICE STATION,
MANDYA CITY,
DISTRICT MANDYA – 571 401.
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2.
SMT.PAVITRA
W/O VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.KL-12,
2ND CROSS, V.V.NAGARA
MANDYA CITY – 571 401.
(AMENDMENT CARRIEDOUT AS PER COURT ORDER
DATED 21.07.2026)
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, SPP-I A/W
SMT.WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R-1;
HC-KAR
SRI H.S.SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNNS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION BY SETTING ASIDE
THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.02.2024 ORDERING TO
FRAME CHARGE AGAINST PETITIONERS / ACCUSED IN
SESSIONS CASE NO.84/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA AND BY
DISCHARGING THEM OF THE O/P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 341, 342, 323, 324, 504, 506, 302, 201 R/W SECTION 149 OF IPC, 1860
ALLEGED AGAINST THEM.
IN CRL.P NO. 11652/2024
BETWEEN:
1.
SMT.ANURADHA
W/O SHIVALINGA,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
2.
SMT. PAMDA M.V.,
W/O SRIDHAR
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.
3.
SMT. SOUMYA
W/O SRIKANTH S.,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
4.
KUM. THANUJA
D/O SOMANNA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS.
HC-KAR
5.
SMT. SNEHALATHA
W/O MANJU,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS.
ALL RESIDENTS OF:
4TH CROSS, V.V.NAGARA, KALLAHALLI,
MANDYA CITY,
DISTRICT MANDYA – 571 401.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MAHESH KUMAR M.N., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI VEERANNA G. . TIGADI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MANDYA WEST P.S
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2.
DELIPKUMAR
S/O KALEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS
RESIDING AT M.C.ROAD,
KALLAHALLI EXT.,
MANDYA
KARNATAKA – 571 401.
3.
SMT.PAVITRA
W/O VENKATESH
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.KL-12,
2ND CROSS, V.V.NAGARA
MANDYA CITY – 571 401.
HC-KAR
(AMENDMENT CARRIEDOUT AS PER COURT ORDER
DATED 21.0.2026)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, SPP-I A/W
SMT.WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI H.S.SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-3)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528
BNSS) PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION BY SETTING
ASIDE
THE
IMPUGNED
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.
ORDER
DATED 19.03.2024 ORDERING TO FRAME CHARGE AGAINST PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED IN SESSIONS CASE NO.84/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA AND BY DISCHARGING THEM OF THE OFFENCES P/U/S 143, 147, 148, 341, 342, 323, 324, 504, 506, 302, 201 R/W SEC. 149 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE, 1860 ALLEGED AGAINST THEM.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Petitioners, in these petitions, are before this Court calling in question an order dated 19-02-2024 directing framing of charges against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 342, 323, 324, 504, 506, 302,
HC-KAR
201 r/w Section 149 of the IPC. Petitioners are accused Nos.1 to 17, they are on a plea that the petitioners were not heard at the time of framing of charges.
2. Heard Sri Mahesh Kumar M. N., learned counsel appearing for petitioners, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned State Public Prosecutor–I appearing for 1st respondent, in both the petitions and Sri H.S.Shankar, learned cousnel appearing for respondent No.2 in Crl.P.No.3419 of 2025 and respondent No.3 in Crl.P.No.11652 of 2024.
3. The Learned State Public Prosecutor-I was directed to appear and secure instructions and make his submissions. The learned State Public Prosecutor-I submits that not on the day of framing of charge, prior to the date of framing of charges on 19 occasions the matter was listed, only for the purpose of framing of charges. The petitioners were not present. Few of them who were in judicial custody were produced and few of them who were outside have remained absent throughout.
HC-KAR
4. It is trite that the Court cannot wait for ages for the petitioners to appear for the purpose of framing of charges. The Court having waited for 19 occasions, there is no warrant of interference at the hands of this Court in a case of murder and several other offences, on the plea that the petitioners were not heard while framing of the charges. While it is the law that the petitioners have to be given an opportunity of hearing, it is an opportunity of hearing to the accused prior to the framing of charge. It is not that the opportunity was not granted by the Court, not once, but 19 times it was granted.
5. A perusal at the order sheet would clearly indicate that the petitioners have deliberately remained absent on every occasion when the matter was listed for framing of charges. The plea or ploy is not that they would remain absent, but they would seek time or file exemption petitions. It is this ploy that led the concerned Court to adjourn it on 19 occasions for the purpose of framing of charges and the interim order granted by the co-ordinate bench is operating for the last 2 years in a case of murder.
HC-KAR
6. Therefore, inter alia, there is no warrant of interference on the ploy of these petitioners that they were not rendered an opportunity of hearing, while opportunity was rendered and it is not once but on 19 times lost by the act of these petitioners.
7. Accordingly, petitions stand dismissed.
In the light of the issue of the year 2021, I deem it appropriate to direct the concerned Court to conclude the proceedings within an outer limit of 8 months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order, if not earlier.
Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
bkp List No.: 2 Sl No.: 20