IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAL,Qé.%'V§::"Lj"~J... V
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY op' DECEMBER. 2{508:* %.1 " AL
BEFORE
THE I-ION'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHCSK £§§1T§iINCiijGfi;R1 "
CRIMINAL Pamfrou I§I@=.1§{'556"QF 2oe~3%_A
BETWEEN:
SMT H L ARUNA H
W/Q G M SURESH .. " .
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS V . =
:9/0 SRE. K.LINGAMr-mi"
C1/C3 NANJAMMA ' _ ::_ " » _ A - V
Nag, BOVIPALYA, _1'CfEQSS ' ' '
MAHALAKSHMILAYQHT Z' _",
BANGALQRE~:§60._a35 * _
'(Biz sgm ?r§R:V§ANTH§ ADVOCATE)
5%.; ,_ _ % ...... 14
s§e:'c;.1«@1'~s:}1<E:si~1A _
8/ Q'SF:"i '.M:;LxA?.P;a.
AGED' Ag-::;_z,:'r' sgwsmmzzs
" =._.,.R/AT HALLEGAEBAE HAROI-EALLE
KANAKAPi£RA.§'ALE5'K
_ =..B_A1'%C_}ALORE.,
PETITIQNER
RESPONDENT
V’ * {BY SR1 M R NANJUNDEGOWDA, ADVOCATE}
‘ ‘1″:-{IS CRLP ES FILED UfS.482 CR.P,C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR
T’l’§j~’1I4V32″‘I7’l§.”I’I’E’I£Z31″~IEI33 PIQAYENG THAT THIS HC5N’BLE CGURT MAY BE
ELEASED T0 QUASH THE ORDER’ D’I’.8.’?.G8 PASSED ON £§.PPLiCA’I’ION
“« U.$;3lI CR,P’.C. IN C,C.N0.91E5,?Q8 QN THE FELE OF’ VII ACMM,
BANGALORE AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION PREFERr21%i’:)’~~E%’§*–f
PETITIQNER _.
THIS CRLP, COMING ON FOR A:>:vms:1QN”4’9fi;§:’s’–‘1Vp1€Y;.’.:TH’E V’
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
.’§.3__.!_%._!_3_..33…§.~
Thfi petitiener raised a challenééxflj £1}: d3;.OS.O7.2008
passed by the Court of WI thfi fietitionefs
applicatian filed under Cr.P.C in
C.(1.l’h:3.9115/2DQS’.j”” ‘ ‘
2. the petitioner filed PCR .
NQ.5521!2Od3. C,..C.No,9115!2003 against the
resp{)I1dcI1§_fpr flié Ap_u:i*ié’hab3e under Scctican 494 and 497
fi i’é-,t:1″‘**?..’;*1E: adéitional ];i$t of Witflf:$S&S but the
safizfi entertained by thr: Magistmte holding ‘[1131:
=..___f3:;€:r¢ is ba_:j {3;:}.z§er Section 294(2) of C3r.P.C to furnish the
_jV_T&T~..:_:gd€ii§iona1 }}’StV”L};f§’itE1€SS€S.
Cfwhsn the matter was posted for further cvizicncc cf the
~{2<:t{fi0:i_,::r, the applicaficn invceking Section 31 1 Cr,P.C came {:3 be
h V the issuance: of Summans to {ha Tahsiidar ané Sub»
fiBH.
Divisional oificm-. The Magmate by his order, dt.p:3 .’§*7f1’2;ée.s
dismissed the said aizzpiicafion.
4: Aggricved by this aforttsaid “i1f1i$
§}I’€S¢§}I1′{€d,
5. Sri Srikanth. the 1eazned’V’VL”‘<;§un$e1 tfir the
petitianar submits that in filed was
0113}: an additional of not the
application. He uneier Section 311
C:r.P.C can 'Tc; his submissiens. he
has rciicé oI1 t.ht_§ jlihdgmcnts:
i) , – 3964(i'”; g::i.L.;.I 443″:
‘~ ii) A;-$2 5.4997 s C’3:;’2’29
529
6. “file s§i;’t::i£its that in the Vgters List producerd by the
‘ ” ‘:*1;1;€;;4;ii'{fi;’f}I’.3¢’33¥f, {}£l(3’~’I}.a1n€ of Sheba the sccend Wife of the respondent is
._ “i13i:~11«1d4;Vd*.»– the Voters List produced by the respondent, {ha name
‘the.:i;:cfitioner shawing her as the wifa of the respondent is
~–.’v’ ii’nc?{i1de:d, To resolve this conflict, the evidence of the Tahsiidar
9814.
Tahsildar or any other witnesses, if his} itheir evicien-$3 u
that Magistrate to be cssentiai for the just–;Ee<:i$i;)n–'_;of
13. Subject £0 tht: obscxvations ‘m.2id_c. hef¢i;1a¥:s0v6T.’=– ihiS3L
petiition is dismissed,
bvr