High Court Karnataka High Court

Cheranda Rajappa @ Appachu vs State Of Karnataka on 28 July, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Cheranda Rajappa @ Appachu vs State Of Karnataka on 28 July, 2008
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
.3.

IN THE mm COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN6ALC )_fI_}é~.._  

5415:: THIS THE 23*" my OF JULY,  1:   

Ber-'cm    

me HON'BL{-3 MR.JUST.ICE MOH£:N 

BETWEEN:

Clheranda Rajappa@  _ A  .< V 
S/o.Poonacha  * -  1 V'
Agcd 64 ycaxs '- _ J
R/atmulsoge,  -   1 .V 

Kodagu Dist.   '*      

(By S1'i'vvF--.A'.i<IanV mg

AND:  _

 V'     ---------- ~ "

'B3,:   Police

%$Mmmpn1 
    .. RESPONDENT

P;N§., l’§’fi§zaz, Addl.SPPj

—.—–.—-_..

% * crx. P. is filed under Section 432 of Cr. 19.0. by the
‘ aaivocatc for the petitioner praying that this Honfblc Court

be pleased to quash the FIR and charge sheet filed by

u “the respondent police in CR.No.52/2802 in so far it relates

to petitioner (accused No.3).

.2.

This CILP. ceming on for admission, this day the
Court made the foI}nwing:é RD E R

Petitioner is accused No.3 in Cxime . 0.f

Madiksri Police Staxion, registered for

punishable under Sections 8, 25m and 25 _ e;§f i?é4Di§S–i’Aét x

and Sections 3 and 25 onndian <' . 1 A

2. The case at’ the Vprfisacufibnt is; 1 jb1’i”t§f”is ktnax’V

aocusé-:’d gown 5,000 ganja trees in

the jgf Accused 1 and 2 were

anti by the jurisdictional com; in

»’ No.6/2002. Accused 1 and 2 W621′:

judment dated 15.12.2004. Based an

bi’ acquittal, this petition is filed under Section

A V’ V. 48i1.g)fvCr1.P.C. by accused Na.3, praying for quashing cf
tpeprmd,-figs.

\»/’

-3..,

3. Learned counsel appearing an V.

petitioner submits that no useful purpossef K

in continuing the prosecution

the other accused, againstV,w_lf1om”-3 a me

made, am already tried to
him. if the ma’ 1 takes it Wili
be a waste of _iudicia1..t§1_ne proceedings

against the %hai*_é ”

«'”%defn1it;eiy quashed the

proceéklirigs if the petiticner had

not . date of the offence tili this day

. ifiamttcnding. Thé petitioner C8I]1″l(}t tnké

own ilault Petitioner has to surrender

% seek for leniency. He can even argue for

his before the Trial Court. Withcut

Vsu.t:§3::itting himself to the judicial process by

.f;}JII’6Ildl3l’iI]g, he cannczzt seek for positive orders in his

V’

,4,

favcur. in View cat’ the: conduct of the –

Court declines to quash the proceedings.

Petition is accordingly “It

the petitioner to s11r’mnder VV

appropriate relief. If the surieiidefi-S
his application for bail «_ the ‘ma!
Court expeditiously. H A 1» I x n