High Court Karnataka High Court

Rajesh @ Ronald Paul vs Police Sub Inspector on 10 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Rajesh @ Ronald Paul vs Police Sub Inspector on 10 March, 2008
Author: K.L.Manjunath
B E F o R_§:~I?u

THE HON'BLE MR.JUsTIc3VK,£.MAnJG§ATfi I

WRIT PETITION N0. 366 of zoofiafiééonxcm)

BETWEEN :

1

'SHAKTHINAGAR;,MAN3ALORE-16

I . 
_ ..--y u- u..~ ----_. _-- v

AGE: 42-¥EAR3. ._ , _ _

sic LATE $G%nTTE PAvI."'"w"
EX-MILITAR£_ __ ._E'*' '
HOUSE Nagiz/113;'aI" ;
 NPKEAR  -- .  ' 

con-'

(By SrI=j RASESH E fiDNAL§ PAfiL, FAR Y-IN-
pngsox) '" I

.'--1
._._'

VA   _é'II'Il"l -5--nv.ruI-u.-fir-|_g|1r\1-\
  J.l.'l53Fl.'.I\uI.l.|J.l'.'K.

Mnmaanonn RURAL ponxcm swamxon
MANGLORE

zydauma HEAD CONSTABLE

AT MANGALORE RURAL PQLICE STAEIQN

I PRESENT WORKING IN KADRI POLICE STATION

MENGBLGRE

HEAD CONSTABLE

MANGALGRE RURAL POLICE STATION
MANGALQRE

I515 £Q'I"I!"\\'I'I'i.'B'I.'IlT| ,
a o :v.I:n::.ru|m.u:uVJ.

(By Sri.H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD, HCGP )



THIS W§P. IS FILE

_- _ L"- - - - f
227 OF THE conswxwuwrou or INDIA, PRAKING To

AGCEFT THIS ?ETITiufi Afin Tana mucEssAEi'Acw;§N~

AGAINST THE R1 AND R2 FOR CHEEEING mun EQNIBLE
couws BY pmonucxue ;ILLEgALLY.'-cagamgs
DOCUMENTS AFFIDKVITS In THE w p.H.c;92;2oo5;_*

|'I"L1"1'€! f.'I'DTlT| 'D'E_fI'|'|"|'l'|'l'f'\'k'l
a..I..I.I.I.J rI£\J. J. 1751;. .1. A. .l.\Is\-.,

THIS BAX, THE COURT MADE was FOLL9WiNG§r

O%ING:GN PG? GRDERS

The pe§1t1ofie§hjn§9fl,gi1e& this writ

Petition igqfieaginq thé apart to take action
against" né:."':j'L11_:>ndents-1 and 2 had filed. a false

fl /
<""



 oth.ers'.V Ifwrespondente-1 a"

”.’_”b—-‘

afifiidavit stating that there are no

cases pending against _–he petiti-ne_rV_4’ancl.1″1ater’ K

on one more affidavit was ‘fi..1.e¢’z

a case is registered against’ petitioner en

a complaint lodgeelby on ‘i’v!~,4anjunai;h’;i”‘

4 . The the course ef
arguments was falsely
lodged falselfir implicated on
the 3§;lVoc1:_4j:e<:1V' Manjunath in C.C.

He;31-713;/'2C:¢)5"..:'-~..r4iSd,.__ it' is clear a case was

.1'
l.'D

h

peti ti her and

;-'x/

__..m-_ ._ –u-sauulu II-L

a=tua11§='«..4re~ie* ' res;fagair.et

n
4'.

. . . . . .. -}

Gt.

fl –

‘ incorrect affidavit and after

i’:ea11sat::.¢;n that a criminal case was in fact

pencii*ng.’against the petitioner and if the same

2 AAVig4..r’brought to the notice of the Court, the

the respondent.-3-1 and 2 he”-e e:c*”‘-:.ed er

manipulated the records. Annexure-N Judgment

in CC 3178/2005 discloses that a case was

255/

‘I

registered against the petitionerf*i1fii5§he

cigscuinstzaxzgeg , :29

5. Accordingly, the, vii.-iii:

dismissed. If the petiu1:_it;;neri.”is V59:

is at liberty 43

with law.

an ~iacfiicn ifi~,aacGrdance