Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Dr. Sudhakar Vs. the State of Karnataka

Dr. Sudhakar vs The State of Karnataka

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Decided Nov 10, 2010
~3 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/907001

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Karnataka High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5550 of 2007
Subject
Criminal Commercial

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

[B. SREENIVASE GOWDA J.] This Crl.P filed U/S.482 Cr.P.C by the Advocate for the petitioner praying that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 3.10.07 passed by the IV Addl. CMM., B'lore City in PCR.No.21842/06. There by dismissing the complaint filed by the petr.

Key legal issue
Criminal Commercial
Acts & sections
Code of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (Cr.P.C.), 1973 - Section 200, 156(3) ; Code of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 406, 417, 418, 420, 468, 477, 120B ;

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dr. Sudhakar

Advocate Sri. P Prasanna Kumar ; Sri. N. D. Gunde, Advs.

Respondent

The State of Karnataka

Advocate Sri. B. Rajasubramanya Bhat, HCGP ; Sri. Aditya Sondhi, Adv.Sri. K. S. Bheemaiah, Advs.

Legal References

Acts
Code of Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (Cr.P.C.), 1973 - Section 200, 156(3) ; Code of Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 - Sections 406, 417, 418, 420, 468, 477, 120B ;

Excerpt

[b. sreenivase gowda j.] this crl.p filed u/s.482 cr.p.c by the advocate for the petitioner praying that this hon'ble court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 3.10.07 passed by the iv addl. cmm., b'lore city in pcr.no.21842/06. there by dismissing the complaint filed by the petr......trial court registering the said complaint as pcr i\io.21842/2006. referred the same to first respondent police for investigation under sec. 156(3) of cr.p.c. the police after investigating the complaint filed a "b' report to court with a notice to the petitioner - complainant. petitioner filed a protest memo challenging the t3' report. in the 'b' report, the investigation officer has observed that there was no ingredient for the alleged offence under sees. 406, 417, 418, 420. 468 and 120b of ipc. he has further stated that he could not collect materials and evidence, in proof of investigation as required under the ipc. petitioner has filed affidavit evidence in support of the complaint and challenging the b' report. the trial court after going through the averments made in the complaint and in the affidavit evidence filed in support of the complaint challenging the b' report, has observed, that no prima facie case is made out, disclosing commission of offence alleged in the complaint, and by its order dt. 3-10-07, dismissed the complaint and accepted the b' report.5. i have gone through the averments made in the complaint and in the affidavit. they do not disclose commission of offence alleged in the complaint. i do not find any error in the order passed by the trial court. 6. accordingly, criminal petition devoid of merits.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. Petitioner in the above petition has sought for setting aside the order dt. 3-10-07 passed by the IV Addl. CMM, Bangalore city, in dismissing PCR No.21842/06.

2. The petitioner filed a private complaint against respondents 2 to 9 by arraying them as Al to A8. Before the trial Court under Sec. 200 of Cr.P.C. alleging that he is a member of St. Marks Cathedral Church, which is one of the constituent churches of Karnataka Central Diocese of the Church of South India and respondents 2 to 9 are the members of the said constituent churches.

3. Accused No. 1 is presently serving as Bishop and Deputy Mediator of Karnataka Central Diocese and Church of South India, and by virtue of he being the Bishop is also the Chairman of all the Boards that fall under the Karnataka Central Diocese, accused No.2 is none other than the wife of accused No.l, accused No.3 is the Principal of Bishop Cotton Girls School and also Secretary of the Board of Management of the said school, accused No.4 is the Treasurer, accused No.5 is the Accounts Manager, accused No.6 is the former Treasurer from January. 2002 to December. 2005. Accused No.7 is the Associate Treasurer and accused No.8 is the Personal Assistant to accused No.l and employee of the Karnataka Central Diocese.

4. Accused No. 1 and 2 along with the other accused have jointly opened a Savings Bank Account in Vijaya Bank. Residency road Branch. Bangalore. They have jointly defrauded the Bishop Cotton Girls School, by committing criminal conspiracy, misappropriation, forgery and falsification of accounts, and prayed the trial Court to take action and punish them under Sees. 406. 417, 418, 420. 468. 477A and 120B of IPC. The trial Court registering the said complaint as PCR I\io.21842/2006. Referred the same to first respondent Police for investigation under Sec. 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The Police after investigating the complaint filed a "B' report to Court with a notice to the petitioner - complainant. Petitioner filed a protest memo challenging the T3' report. In the 'B' report, the Investigation Officer has observed that there was no ingredient for the alleged offence under Sees. 406, 417, 418, 420. 468 and 120B of IPC. He has further stated that he could not collect materials and evidence, in proof of investigation as required under the IPC. Petitioner has filed affidavit evidence in support of the complaint and challenging the B' report. The trial Court after going through the averments made in the complaint and in the affidavit evidence filed in support of the complaint challenging the B' report, has observed, that no prima facie case is made out, disclosing commission of offence alleged in the complaint, and by its order dt. 3-10-07, dismissed the complaint and accepted the B' report.

5. I have gone through the averments made in the complaint and in the affidavit. They do not disclose commission of offence alleged in the complaint. I do not find any error in the order passed by the trial Court.

6. Accordingly, criminal petition devoid of merits.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial