High Court Karnataka High Court

Ayyanahalli Mallikarjuna vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 April, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Ayyanahalli Mallikarjuna vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 April, 2009
Author: H.N.Nagamohan Das
IR THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA 

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

mmn mm THE 22313 DAY or   

THE norrnm ma. JUBTlCE:1H.!:i; 

csummn. ps1.'m9x !ie,7316¢"2§§3f§§._,  

QETW BEN:

1.

AYYANAHALLI MAL.L2~KAR.JUNAL" ~  V . V ' * .
AGED ABOUT 44 YEAR"=§ '--  L  .. *
SHANTHAPPA '- _ f '
occ COMPANY AGENT 

R/0 vIRUE'>A.P:5RA=:_ 3» 
KUDLi'(}i._   . 1 '

:£{A12IB'AsVA_PPAi";V ' _  _
2:2_GE:>1AB0i}?_,40 maaés ~ -

S/Q BASAPPA   .
OCC-._A{3I?IL'r.  _  '

R/O VERUVPAPURA AYYANAHALLI

g {UDLiG£».. _ '~

1. 

 PETITIONERS

'   Mfs ;é'CI;I*:§ LAW FIRM, ADVS.)

 S'I;ATE OF KARNATAKA
3§3Y KUDLIGi POLICE STATION

 AA  BELLARY

YEMMERA BASAVARAJ

AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

aw



S/O YEMMERA SIDDAPPA
OCC AGREL

VIRUPAPURA

KUDLIGI

(BY SRLANAND K. NAVALGIMATH, HCGP"FGR R':1  _ "V .
SR} '1' KOTRESH, ADV. FOR R2) '  3  V V

--   .   

THIS PETITION IS FILED U,?_s';'~-sgsz (312'*.c:a~.1?.J'c.:, "i?:é;«w1:'~3G TO; V

QUASH THE ENTIRE CRfI'viI_NAL 'PRQCEEIRNGS IN
C.C.NO.644/2008 PENDINQIN 'rH5:1--1r='.;'1'3E  COURT--0§i"THE JMFC,
KUDLIGI. '  5 ..  v 

THIS PETITE-N c;( )"rV§{ 1'I:s:V}:;. (3§4I%_§v.12jr')ra'='§< ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, THE comm' ;s4Ar;;E'rH,E FC)J..LQ\FJI£~R'}:

 fi §RD£R

..   under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash

  __i11 C.Ci.No.644/2008 pending on the 51a of

Ji»!£F'5C;_V:itVVK¥{i:_11igi',"" .

 A.   s Second respondent filed a compiaint on

against the petitioners and the same came to be

“ncgiistcmd in Cr.No.44/2008 for the ofiiances punishable under

A ‘ Sccfion 143, :47, 143, 341, 323, 324, 506 R/w :49 of IPC.

dgvx,/\_

3

After completion of investigation, the Police have

charge sheet in C.C.No.644/ 2008.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioners

respect of the veiy same incident on

filed a complaint against the 2″‘? :fC_$pOn&f{fii’- and o

same came to be registered in C1’fi%§o’}t4I /2008 foi;’the;:ott’ences
punishable under Section “3531, “($324, 504,

506 R/W 149 of IPC. The investigafion

and have;xnow_ {against 23*’ respondent and

others in (38. Counsel for the petitioners

contend; that tnerejts’ tielny of mom than two months in filing

respondent and the-refoxe the

be quashed in C. C. No.64»: 12008. The

Supreme ogufieieae 2004 AIR sow 1342 heid that delay by itseif

ground to quash proceedings under Section 482

Therefoxe, i decline to accept the contention of the

Counsel for the petitioners.

C7″”””k”%

4

4. Secondly, the leazned Counsel for the petitioners

contend that the medical certificates pmdueed: file

prosecution are false and they are contmxy to

prosecution. This is a matter of evidenee be

assessed by the Trial Court. Under

not proper for this Court to the.”evide;;{ce at V

this stage. . _ _
For the reasons _”L’he’apetition is hereby

dism1’ss(§d thefespondents.

3d/Q
Iudg”‘é’