VINAY. C. MUSALE v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Court: High Court of Karnataka
Bench: M.NAGAPRASANNA
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Karnataka judgment dated 2026-04-27. VINAY. C. MUSALE v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
- 1 - CRL. P No. 5406 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU TH DATED THIS THE 27 DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5406 OF 2026 BETWEEN: VINAY C. MUSALE S/O LATE, CHITRA RANJAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 162/2, JJ PALACE, TH 18 CROSS, VIJAY NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560040 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL S. RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Digitally VIJAY NAGAR POLICE STATION, signed by SANJEEVINI J BANGALORE 560040 KARISHETTY STATE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR Location: HIGH COURT, High Court of Karnataka VIDHANASOUDHA, BENGALURU - 01 2. KUM. TRIVENI. S. V. , D/O VENUGOPAL AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. C2, TOWER 102, DLF WEST END HIGHTS, - 2 - CRL. P No. 5406 of 2026 AKSHSYA NAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 068. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP) THIS CRL. P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.
PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO A) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28. 07. 2023 ONE PASSED ON THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER SEC. 302(2) OF CR. P. C. ONE PASSED BY THE COURT OF XXIV ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE IN C. C NO. 29965/2019 FOUND AT ANNEXURE- A TO THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri. Sunil S. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri. B. N. Jagadeesha, learned Addl. SPP appearing for respondent No. 1 and have perused the material on record. 2. The petitioner is before the Court, seeking a spade of prayers, all of which, on the face of it, have become stale, as either they are 6 years old or 3 years old, as the case would be. - 3 - CRL. P No. 5406 of 2026 3.
Learned Additional SPP submits that 6 years prior to the filing of the subject petition, charges have been framed and the trial is on, obviously so, as the petitioner calls in question an order of the year 2023 passed under Section 302 of the Cr. P. C. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner now would restrict his submission to a direction to the concerned Court to conclude the proceedings within a timeframe that this Court would fix. 5. The case is of the year 2017. As the complaint is registered in the year 2017 and the case is pending before the concerned Court for the last 9 years, in that light, I deem it appropriate to infuse finality into the proceedings with a direction to the concerned Court to conclude the proceedings within an outer limit of six (6) months in accordance with law. 6.
It is needless to observe that parties to the lis would co-operate to the direction of conclusion of the proceedings, failing which, it is open to the concerned Court to pass necessary orders in accordance with law. - 4 - CRL. P No. 5406 of 2026 With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M. NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SJK List No. : 2 Sl No. : 44
Source: High Court of Karnataka. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.