IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS um aura DAY or uAncr,1.2{eoSSESjS L { M
BEFORE
um Homsnn MR. JUSTICE
"
BETWEEN:
1 ANANTHA M
E ' E ' PETITIONER
(BY SR1: M. GIRISH an ASSo(:mf1'ES 9+ ADV'O_C'.ATES)
1 K. SHIVA_MEJR.'_I'HY @,_MiUR'i'I-'EY
S/Q. 1aENGANN'.;e_. .@ --NANJE<30WDA
34 ?{EARS;.*i2/AT' YALANAHALLI
VILLAGE, HIRESAVE--!:IOBLI
CHANNARAYA 'PATNA TALUK
2 H..- DINE4 SI~I_VS/O' HUCHHEGOWDA
@:€HUcHAPP»., E 27 YEARS
é "HOI*3NAS:'EHETTY 'HALL1 VILLAGE
A -»HV1R.ESAV_E.IjIOBLI
' .,cLLa1~INARAYSAPA'rNA TALUK
A 3 '1{ALASH2.1é1@KA1.APPA
S; QKALACHARI, 35 YEARS
HONNASHETTY HALLI VILLAGE
" VSHIRESAVE HOBLI
» , CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK
RESPONDENTS
% FSRI: DESAI ASSOCIATES — ADVOCATES FOR R1
KUMAR 85 KUMAR — ADVOCATES FOR R2 85 R3)
THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S. 373(1) 65 (3) CR.P.C.
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER
€/
DfI’:21/2/2006 PASSED BY THE ADDL. S.J., 6:. I=.c:.%;ii,iI4’fI*«:f:i:§II;I;e
HASSAN, IN S.C.NO. 83/2001.
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PE’i'”ITIC.’N:~«. C01i:4IiJCi.,i'(i3Nii.i”.
FOR ADMISSION BEFORE THE COURT EHIS DAY,’ .TH.E1f_:
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:f
I
Heard the learned eounsei and
respondents.
2. snijohjeofion as to how this
revision is is the complainant
before the-___ the learned counsel for
the petitionerjilias State as a party in this
_VproceediI1’gs. In ‘tl1_e” sbsence of the State, it is dificult for
the questions involved in this
3; ~ Lesrned counsel for the petitioner submits that
i permitted to file a fresh Revision Petition making
State as a Party.
4. Accordingly, liberty is reserved to the petitioner
to file a fresh revision petition suhiect to law of limitation.
6/
5. With the above obsetvations,
petition is dismissed as not pressed.
KGB.