IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 19'"! DAY OF JUNE 2008
BEFORE
THE HOWBLE Mr. JUSTICE H N NA(;»Avz:qQH;ra'ri"i_jA;'~'§l.
CRL.P.NO.34-4 oFgo0;3 A
1 KRISHNA REQDY
s/0 MUNISWAMY REDIJY §
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS ' %
M.1~'.N swam m<:1*o;-ng "
ADMINISTRATiVE,_MANAGER _ A
910.232 PAPER"'I'Q.-'zVN,"--. % ,
BHABRAVATHI A * A
2 H BoRA1_=fPA'*~,_ v:.,__ _ " '
S/O HANUMAN'I'i«I}gPPA"»...é' .
AGEDIABOUT'5':?:-'YEAR3 ., ' -
SUGEK".%*'AC'I'URY"£§'i:}PUf;'Y».MANAGER
NO. 1.223;. 131' BLOCK, .-- V
BHADR1&VA"'IfHI' _ = "
- B t£F':A.,IAS{iEKAI? 11111
._ "ago B S VNAGAPPA
AGEI) ABOUT' 44 YEARS
---.M.~;». 353- %='ACI'0RY
SENIOR Ti:~:r;:;HN1cAL ASSISTANT
* NO;~'I_'~1;f.s'!U1 PAFER TOWN
; BHABRAVATHI
... P1f}TI'l'f0NEKS
.MfsHARAss CHANDRA, ADV.)
STATE OF' KARNATAKA
BY Bi*IADRAVA'I'I-H TOWN P. S.
6:G311piai11f--."io ti}; 1'" f駧dndent -- police and the same came
'~.-e._ r,f,w 34 Fixst respondent -- Police afier investigation
charge sheet before the Trial Court in.
–. {:.3.C§No.1123/2003 against 2′? accused including the
jpetitionerss herein. These three petitiozxers filed an
2 ESWARAIAH
MANAGER SECURITY VIGELANCE
M.P.M FACTORY, BHADRAVATHI
RESPONDENTS A’
(By Sri: A.V.RAMAKRISHNA, H(_3GP)
CRL.P FILED U/S-.482 CR.P.C,BY._THE ADE-‘TJCATEV
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING mar ‘-mis *’HQ_N’.B1_,E’ ~
com-:1′ MAY 51:: PLELASEED TO QUASfi ‘i’l~E_}:} ~&>t<<):.}:;;<;:£s;L)a;v<-3:5. '
AGAINST THEM IN C.C.N0.1123[2003–.QF. BHA£3'.'£?AVATH.I
TOWN POLICE STATION I"'ENDIN_Ci~._C)N 'I"i~iE f:'IL}"_1. O{?"C1.V!'L
JUDGE (JRDN) as J.!v!.F'.C. COURT, 313HA!I)RA_VATHI.
This Criminal Pcaaofi' <:Qi11i1:g_gvi§5n_'{§§*~admission this
day, the court made the following:-*' =
1
fexj the pmceedings
in C.C.No’;i’13éf;éd(33; =o1:i. . th¢ Civil Judge (JD) 85
JMFC,
:;¢
-V _ Gfi 2″ respondent gave a
‘$0.. 11¢. 2 Crime No.18/1999 for the oficnces
pufiis_§ab1¢. Section 419, 420, 464, 468, 471, 408
application before the Triai Court under Section 239 CRPC
d_,_,\,.,
fer discharge on the ground that there is no material to
constitute an offence charged against them. The
Court vticie order dated 26.17.2007 dismissed the’..:ii1$:5iie’aii{in. .
filed by the petitioners. Now the petitioners-ex1e–:ijet:'<5:'*e i:1_1is.e, i ii" 2
court under Section 482 CJRRC ,f<)§;fiv
proceedings against them. 121* ibis petiiicn,
have not sought for quashing Verde: of dated
26.7.2007 dismissing :h§app1ib'a;i§;:g..:;y the gaésiuoners
for discharge. I find no for
interference =
For sifated a2§¢§e;' the petition is hereby
rejected iwifliout opinion on the merits of the
case. i
Sd/-.5