Also reported in
This judgment disposed of connected matters. The same reasons were delivered in
the following 3 cases.
Headnote
AI-drafted · Reviewed and approved
These were a batch of twenty-one criminal petitions filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (now Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) and one writ petition, seeking quashing of multiple FIRs registered at Sheshadripuram Police Station, Bengaluru (later transferred to CCB), for alleged offences under Sections 409, 420, 465, 468, 471, 472 and 120B read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The FIRs arose out of allegations of criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery and use of forged documents in connection with transactions involving the Bangalore Development Authority.
The petitioners, who included BDA officials and private individuals, contended that the FIRs were liable to be quashed on various grounds, including lack of prima facie case, abuse of process, and non-disclosure of cognisable offence. The State and the complainant-respondents opposed quashing, maintaining that the allegations disclosed serious offences warranting investigation and trial.
The Karnataka High Court considered the batch of petitions together given the commonality of the FIRs and the parties involved. The judgment authored by Justice Mohammad Nawaz addressed the scope of the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC/528 BNSS to quash FIRs and examined the facts and allegations in each petition in the context of settled legal principles governing such jurisdiction.
Catchwords:
quashing of FIR · inherent jurisdiction · Section 482 CrPC · Section 528 BNSS · criminal breach of trust · cheating · forgery · use of forged documents · Bangalore Development Authority · BDA officials · criminal conspiracy · IPC Section 409 · IPC Section 420 · IPC Section 465 · IPC Section 468 · IPC Section 471 · IPC Section 472 · IPC Section 120B · batch petitions
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.
