CrLP.1_?02.06
IR THE HIGH GOURT or V H
cmcurr nmacn AT '« V V_
DATE!) mas THE 25% an ofi; ii:_9%}t:s'1fi"V2£)As'A "
nEmm :%k % k C
TI-IE Honmns h§R.JU"fi1;i{:$ R,_AB.KtA'IKA
cm1g;_raAL
Between:
1. *_
S/o late S_a£§rs§na1~a;fa.nT'Singuh;
Ag€:"3'6
OcL::Bt1si1x1t:SsvR,_AV _ *
R/at Rampet; ~HoSpet}=.._ %
Dis11ic,t:BcH2:1y§
2. Dilscp ~
é3_lQ ls-.te Sat)"ra-w.r.1g_1_f_eA1ya3:1 Singh,
A 'LAgc£:'L33""3zcaIs,
--» Qcg:Eus.ine:ss,
' RI' a'tRaIfii?.¢1» Hospet.
'--Districi:
-- V3. 'ésingh,
S] :3 late Satyanarayaa Singh,
" :._Agc:"'32 years,
Rfat Ranipct, Hospet,
" 'District:Be)JaIy. PETITIOIIERB
T 8ri.Jeevan Jxeexalg. Adv)
A' VA.nd:
1. The State of Karnataka,
By Police Sub-Inspector, *
C1"i.P.1'!02.G6
Hospct Tcwn Police,
Hospet, District: Bcllary.
2. B.S.Ratankuma1'(a1ias) B.S.Ratan singh, .: . ' «
S/o late B.Satyanarayana Singh,"-~_ .
Aged about 48 years, '
Occ:Busi11esa,
R/at: Ranipet, Hospet, .
Bellaty Bist.
(By St!.Anand K.!lavalgim'atf.1,_}1§_c(§'£? fer' R"2i.~,._
Bllmlllillnd G.Gokhale and 9' 2
81-i.R.Dvraresh,~.Adv £a:~~'.R2§) '
This pefifién ' Cr.P.C. by the
advocate for the ptttitibner jp;aying"*tha_'t Hoxfblc Court may
be pleased to quasmhe gizoce-filings C.C.N6.1590[03 on the
file of that: *i'\'Ci(i?.. 1 (J'z:.D1i;). 98:». JMFEL; Hospet.
444Vk'23.:t"f:x'1' ffi er hearth g, this day, the
Court made .t_he_fo11o_winA'g: _ "
Bnnmn
Thazu have challenged the order of issue of
and to quash all proceedings in
on the file of the Court of JM13-'C., Hospet.
brief facts of the case are that on 08.01.2002 at
5.30 pm. one Ratan Singh-respondent No.2 lodged a
‘4 complaint in town police station, Hospet, aileging that himself
and his mother were residing in Want} No.6 at Ranipet, Hospet
/Q’ (.U~..~£t–g:ir’—~
Crl.?.1702.G6
and that his father died 17 years prior to the ‘
compiaint, that the petitionexs who areeehisé ” ”
separately, that his sisters are Iesidittg
respective matrimonial houses; ._t§:;gt several
owned by the joint family. ‘_ Out of by the
joint family, site No.79 (Oki._§\io.7;3) 1§.’ae” by brothers
without the kzuowletige of the Kantaataka
Bank and his »:1;é;: péfiiiofiere flame; obtained ban.
3. The ;1et%u.¢.j%t diejiiite of having pledged the
property etthe time loan. Their main contention
is that the by them was only to the
f toextex2£’:’*ort,::hcir the property and that the law itself
of the 21″‘ respondent-original complainant.
Evezt “if Jwilling to cneat encumberance in respect of
‘the tlxcte property of the 2″‘ respondent, they could not
K x V any such eneumberance. It is also submitted that
R new the petitioners have already discharged the Eabifity of
‘ bank and ‘£116 mortgage is redeemed. It is further
submitted that the petitioners herein had obtained loan for
The vehicles in question were
§¢.(Z»\,»\.«:.Ls:a.»t._
purchase of vehicles.
Crl.P.17(}2.06
hypothicatcd to the bank and as an additional security this
property bearing No.79 was plsdged with the in
the facts and circumstances of the case
that the proceedings initiated against’ the _
to be quashed. Hence, the following; ‘ :
oanaa
The petition is cgaef” of of process
dated 03.01.2002 is ” proceedings in
C.C.No.1590I on are hereby
Judge
J31].-.,