IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY 01? DEcEMBE~r:,..'2:aTO§:j: . E
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L_.NARAYANA swag?
CRLIMINAL PETITION u1'$Io_".E ' 7961}2o;b9'-I
BETWEEN:
1.
BASAVARAJA
S/O. HEMANN}\,.__ .
AGED ABOUT YEARS, =
OCC. A(}:F%'if';L_i1;TU;R1'E37['.__'
NAQAréAJA:':ii. 4
S/O';VvHEP»'IA1D'§?,{X«V.. ' "
AGE::~,AB<)UT " .
occ. PR}VATE'=EMPL,.O':?EE.
Pr;A's.:xD fABT_§3T 39 YEARS,
ocTcv...,4PR;m§\T.E SERVICE.
5 LL AREEj*R}:=fi:j. HANUMANAHALLI
v;LLA~GE;.=1<UDL:c3I TALUKA,
DIST'; BELLARY.
" PETITIONERS
" SR1. MANJUNATH. C}. PATIL, ADVOCATE}
E
5
1. YUVARAJA DB.
AGE.MAJOR,
OCC. GEOLOGIGT, ._
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OE '
MINES AND GEOLOGY DEPT.
HOSPET, _
BE3LLARY~DISTRlC'E'. ' '-
2. THE SUBWINSPECTOR OF PQL_1C.E
KOTTUR POLICE STA'TL()N,;* '* '
KUDLi--'I'ALUK, 2 _
BELLARY EisTR1CT, _
REPRESENTED BY sP,p_H1G;«1_COL%'RT'=._'; ..
OF KARNATA4!_x;A,.__CIR:CUI"1"if$ENC¥1, - A '
DHARWAD
. . RESPONDENTS
(BY :sE1";' 1--ifC;'G'}'P.)
THIS "C;éE,p' as"7F':LE--1j"'"U/s. 482 CR.P.C BY THE
ADVOCATE ER- vTNE'~., PETITIONERS TO QUASH THE
PROCEEDTNGS IN .C;C. NO. 600/2008 ON THE FILE OF THE
:_~"C1,\_z1L..[__;}.U;OGE (JR'.O.N._.;« CUM JMFC COURT, KUDLIGI
'..DISTR_iCT EELEARY.
V -THis.7PETiTO.N COMENG ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
THE'C{)URTP.!1AD1E THE FOLLOWINC}:
ORDER
pC{it%Gr2 was dismissed On 25/11/2009 on merits.
“”.Th0T”Eaft€F in 81’i()t§”1€.’1″ Case: in Cr1.P. 8026/2009 in the similar
ii
La)
circumstances, I have allowed the petition by referringg the
judgments reported in 2007(3) AIR KAR 499 and alsoil4’th:e’lh’rder
passed in Crl.P. No. 7258/2009 dtd. 11/03/24iQo9j”eeiiti’iyet’
another judgment in Crl.P. No.
Bench dtd. 04/ 03/ 2008. These i.tvere’vno’t».plaee’d–.,hy~.u
the learned counsel for the petitiéoher, vxtheni thee;slaidiflfiéetitionll
was disposed on 25/11/2909. A,-“i”h«erealfter I feei’~ithia§t when a
relief is granted in a 8026/2009
subsequently also entitled for
the same relief; was posted for
being passed therein was recalled on
15/12/20(i)i9. Accordingty it has come
V for fine§lihe.aring.”‘., ii
A ‘V the parties.
ll/Iiianjunath.G. Patil has argued the matter.
* The question involved in the present petition and also
.Vthe_§prayer sought for, in these petitions are similar in nature.
f
Since the petitioner did not furnish the sufficient materiéi:s”-eind”
also the above referred the judgments, the said petitionisiés. it
dismissed. in the Cr1.P. No. 8026/2f}O’9–whe–i”e
counsel has relied the giidgments of this C’ou”rt refefied isugfiizf.
on which this peutioner is entitled fofithe sé1″m;e.v _V 1
Accordingly this petition is also”-allowed ‘.f.CfVI”I.}f1S Crl.P.
8026/2009. Ve _ __ . _
The proceedings in QC. -No. 600/2_.£)_C8[_’;oVn’_’_the file of the
Civil Judge,_(.}r.DnQj’–“:;–nd”.I_.iVi.,i3″;C.’Court, Kudligi, Dist. Beliary
is set aside.
1
Sd/’-
FUDGE