High Court Karnataka High Court

Mr.Arul Raj Prem Sagar vs The State on 12 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Mr.Arul Raj Prem Sagar vs The State on 12 January, 2010
Author: A.S.Pachhapure


-3-

3N THE HKSH COURT OF K.5s.RNATAKA AT BANGAL§RE

DATED THES ‘(HE 12*?’ MY as JANuAR~{.2t::t§’__%_’%i’I; *
BEFORE
THE E-lQN’B£..E Mmusmcaa ;é;,s%_:=.A ;;;J52:fi
cRL,PET;T;QN sx:é:5;31%s{52′>oo9j’~%__i%’%-H. 1

BETWEE§’\§:

$2,

MR. ARUL PRE_M- smaa .

sxo %-m’E MR;’–«S.’THANG;%.%3W$?viY
AGEEiV~;?:B*3iJ:T 28, YEARS
R£Sé§§3’41,G A’? afar 67:. ”

‘.,’§”RE_N.!’T’§’ -S:J38S0f’M'”v…_ % %

§*€E?*éIfs££.ifi n.:s;x.”I::: Ram j

B;a£:5GaLos2E j

% ‘V?::§_’$: Ru§J”{V%jéV”{?{A¥*;iGA$WAh,§¥
~ W%€}VLATE”¥v’iR8;’THANGAS’%fi£AMY

.5§€3E{}~AB{}U? 68 YEARS
§E$§§§if”~§C-3 AT #07’,

* T’i;’R:.EN’iT§f.3iL0SSGM

– §~£E§’s3’i*.i£.J’}fi MAN RGAD

B£§N$j::’–\LORE
V ….. .,PE”{§T¥Q§\£ERS

3 g a~r;_ss2:’ #21 RANJETH saawxm & A£$.€§ was.)

THE $TATE
8′? E-‘fE¥\£!\1UR QGLFCE ST£TE8?’sE

92, GLAEYS EJEEPA
CK) summ 5.: %
# 12, ESCHOL
197′” CROSS
ms LAYOUT _ <
KENGERI SATELLETE mv.m
BANGALORE "

KARNATAKA %
RESPONEENTS

( 32* SR! RAJA susaaméxmra ‘B-.4}-\f§’ , __l;{1(: .(3;7év”F{3R R-1)

THIS c§2::9′:::x§?A:.- .l§;*ET§Ti§§N’:.” UNDER $ECa#82 or
NER PRAYENG
THAT:v’Ti-E’ijS”i~4;.C)?§£’§:£::§E’ wig? Fae PLEASED TO (1) wasw
THE FER M CVR!hé1E§ !_§1Q’_v’:§g$8f23G7 as HENNUR POLICE, DATED
23:’:.2097:’52E¢:sj%’5é::a§’¢~%%”}u;s 498(A) AND 506 my NGW

S§%§}§.5§&’Gfl;E:j:S%<{EETAfE'£W%E*J{3 NUMBERES cc. 24833 or: 2033 AND

A %$§<:2;n¢_ *v§?E;N:D3éf§G. on THE :'-'!LE 05': THE X!—AD{3L. Ci?-REF

H rga}Em<§'::%:~f:;¢s;z£:% MAGSITRATE ccumz BANGALORE AND ETC.

VA * mas PEYITEGN camrws 05: gm emsas ms om:

"T?-§'fE'€:QURT was THE FOE_,LQW§¥%£€'.-;:

The §ea€ne<;¥ ztcunaefi for the pe1§if%or: e §§$ ;h aye':§¥'ed:' 'a..zn_§%§1g '

witfzdgawal 0f the petifion.
2, in View of the memo ' fi3e{§'byVVthe '§ea{Vfie{:£ céégnsei fer the

petéticner, the petition is di$§23§sse§§$# é;%zf€!fezJ %'aexe¢n.

BR