Loading...

Appasaheb vs Hunsur Rural Police Station on 6 August, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Appasaheb vs Hunsur Rural Police Station on 6 August, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi


BETWEEN

mmmmm zu-

N THE HIGH cou RT 0? KARNATAKA AT apwggne
DATED TH IS “ms 03″‘ BAYQF AL£GL’_JS’;T;4’2§i5£39 “‘

BEFORE?’ _ % % _
THE HGN’B§.E MR, Jfistips $U§§+AsHé.At;:«Vv

Cf§L.P.No,_2§?9{2*9Q? v%

uuuuu –…

APPASAHEB %
sic sHAewAs~m~g :’3;’t_JTI¥;.£§ % %
AGEDABO1}Ti_44 Sgiamqs, 4%
wonxnsza As swag ENG-;_lN~!EE’F3 %
£4025, BAN?4£¥v€A¥§i_TAF L.AY€}’:.¥_T
msoas,-_

KHALEEL = % V ‘ * AA ” = %

szo saasx KHABER 5AsHA~-

AG ES AB(3!J’¥’ 5; wzms _

woaxme AS E?RCi.J.C::”C”{ MANAGER
MJS.§\iA£5ARJUN cQNsTeaucTm so Lm,

‘ % :~:o,??a, E’-.§N»N_£¥s#ANTfi;§-*”LAYOUT

———- -Jail

A fv1¥SOF§E_

PET¥T¥ON ERS

T} E83: 3:: : s§~«;, P;aLT’s:;%:§:2s PATH. AN9 mm.)

* Himsua RURAL POEJCE s’rAT;c::N

BY SUB-l?%S§’ECTOR wsv STATE PP

r-new CQURT er: KARNATAKA

BANGALORE

SHEVANNA GOWEA

SID KALASE GOWDA
AGRICULTUFEST

RKG KATTiMAL.A%_WAD¥ WLLAGE
TQ HUNSU R

D§ST MYSORE

« P€5f$:§f)AEN’§’S” ‘ ~ » A

(By Sri: HONNAPPA, HOG?) _ % _

CRLP $3.50 U/8.482 r;m=.c,svffr:-+é%.LAnvdCAIE%’é=oR THE
PETITDNER PRAYENG TH;rcr*;TH:s 1:-.:c>r:_-aa%_E.% comm” MAY BE
PLEASED TC) QUASH THE Pacoseaawas iN~C:§’;.NO.273/86 on me
FILE OF THE JMFC.,HUNSUR._V_ V .

This petition c;>rrii’§j§,gj’on;3tor€o;”t§ief§ “day; the court made the

following;

Petitioners’*,__’?1a»geV”‘ s5u:gi2t:’:’_”_.»€ér quashing the prooeedéngs in

(§_,C.No2?3{2bG6 pendirgfih the} me of JMFC, Hunsur,

:2.’ _ police has registered a case in Crime Nc>.”¥76fG4

fz,12.%:$2{bo}%d4 i’c;§r.’.vé;:’§’.’::j_:=»A::”:ices punishable under Section 304{A) rfw 34 :96,
“~’.A_i’;}§tiafly mt; efifiiptézint was registered against the contractor, MESCOM
v¢i”Héu$:V*s1ur. During the course cf fiwe investigaiion the police have
statements of various witnesses and they have diaclosed

‘ t§1é petitiane: and anathe: corznecieé the live wire to %he newiy drawn

flééne by the company, as a resuit cf which the deceased came in cemact

with the saié five wére and died. The case alleged against ihe petitioners

is one purtishabte under Section 30499.). The prosecuticzj
the material as against the petitioners. The tt:ei
names ofthe petitioners. a A V’ t V’

3. Learned counsel for the petititrt-tt§r:;_su£’)itfx§ts_*; that: Vdégéay of’ ‘ L’
six months in fiting the <:c::mpta§rz__t.. If rea§§y..tt§'e. géstitiontéré' are Waived and
if such incident had taken pIacVe';"tt£'ere"c§£étti been delay in fiiing

the cemplaint.

5, Leafned $1é§9;:n§§t’ét:t~?téetde{ sabmits that the Jurttcr Engineer,
Assistant Enginger of ‘t!3 e tfiafité–._i§§i!3§e have stated the name at the
petitioner and an¢tEér._%£’wt;esé iréétanee the wire was ccnnected wtth the

;*§<§ske–r sugéfiiy am aséa re$i:£tb¥ which the accident happenecg it is also am

recémt "ti}a;1{t"t£'t:e§;~'.:_e:A ¢3V§':e$"_f,xrere deadlines and they were not supptied with

t V' powetg 'ha_§sééveVr,. t1o9'1–;:t:r};etec:t the theft of the wire it appears that they were

.. _f'_;git;én' power'~3§$pty without perttfission as a resuii of which the incident

'1 'trad' é'cf;té:'t?e«:£.

‘fiérzstdering that the chargesheet has hear: filed and the materiat

cj¥§_4ite’eiit£crwrst not 3 case for quashing the proaeedings. fiwcordingiy. the

5%

fietitior: is dismissed, However, it is open for the petitiongfis

contentions raised in ihis petition, at appropréate._s;ag§§;V”}§x’h§’I,¢$§eEvati¢n’ ‘

made during the course of this order, §s mad:eAor’fl yT fair

case. The iearneci Magistrate shaii neiTVge~1_prej’Lic§E<:jed. by'»iSv'1 e:'«:;§i3sen:é1tions» . L'

made in this order.

BKB! ….

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information