Also reported in
This judgment disposed of connected matters. The same reasons were delivered in
the following 4 cases.
Headnote
AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
These were a batch of criminal petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) along with a connected writ petition, seeking quashing of FIRs registered by the Sheshadripuram Police Station, Bengaluru, subsequently transferred to the Central Crime Branch (CCB), for alleged offences punishable under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 472 and 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The cases arose from complaints lodged by the Vigilance and Special Task Force of the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) alleging criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and use of forged documents in relation to BDA affairs.
The petitioners, who included BDA officials and related persons, challenged the initiation and continuation of criminal proceedings against them, contending that the FIRs were legally unsustainable and liable to be quashed. The matters were clubbed together before the Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru given the common facts, nature of allegations, and overlapping parties across the various crime numbers registered by the Sheshadripuram Police Station.
The Karnataka High Court, presided over by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mohammad Nawaz, took up all the connected petitions for joint hearing and consideration in view of the common questions of law and fact arising in all the matters. The judgment addresses the merits of the challenge to the FIRs and the criminal proceedings pending before the IV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
Catchwords:
quashing of FIR · Section 482 CrPC · Section 528 BNSS · criminal breach of trust · cheating · forgery · use of forged documents · Bangalore Development Authority · BDA officials · Central Crime Branch · IPC Sections 409 420 465 468 471 472 120B 34 · Karnataka High Court
Headnote © LegalFirms.in. Section 52(1)(q)(iv) of the Copyright Act, 1957 allows a court's
judgment to be reproduced unless the court has prohibited it.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.
