2 >,z~£ s:H£:«:AR1~;f"-~. " .
IN THE HIGH COURT Of!" KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATEI') Tl-ES THE 81" DAY OF JULY 2003
BEFORE :
me HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MORAN sHAi%ifA%§:%Aeb'uéa2
CRIMINAL PETDION No.&3w%z[20Gs _
atween: I " A 1 'V 'V
K SHANTHAPPA S/O PGNKRA
AGED ABOUT 43 ms
sgo PONKRA '
sun INSPECTOR as Excxsa '
UDUPI SUB~DIViSiCN A '
UDUPI
UDUPI DESTRICT.
AGED ABOUE' was " ~ ,
Sm LME '£"HUf;RA
EXCISE C}UAE?D7,
' ~ QDUPI E£.UB'D£VI$"iDN
UDUPI _
' 3-.U.DU--P;.I DESTRICT.
' _ " H '$912-1}'1A:{ARA
- -AGEB A39-'m 34 YRS
sir) 'I..A',i='E THUBURA
F.)§.CI:}§E GUARD
V'-UDUP} SUB DEVISION
~. UDUPI
"UDUPI DISTRICT.
V' w A CHETAN
AGED ABOUT 28 YRS
S I O PUTTEGOW DA
R/O AROOR COMPOUND HANUMAN
GARAGE ROAD,
CHITPADY, UDUPI,
UDUPE DIS'1'RIC'I'.
5 RAMESHA
AGED ABOUT 27 ms
s/0 KRSIHNE GOWDA
R/O HANUMAN GARAGE man
CHITPADY, UDUPI, . V. V. ._
UI)UFi [)IS'I'RiCT. P2:'1'1_'f:1':.2N2;1*<3L_'*- "
{By Sri 1 H C HANUMALAH, ADVOCATE 3
AND :
1 STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY BRAHMAVARA POLICE
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTORV
HIGH COURT BULDING
BANGALORE
2 VERONICA connmo ' " '
AGED ABOIII' 42 YRS ' V .
we ARIAN C:§RVELI{33" - .
R/O KEMMAHNU. '
111313131, 3 v
uDup1;3is'z*1:1t:¥r..g'._ " RESPONKDENTS
(By Sri H;BA£AKR£S.H N.§,','--HCx'3{i5'FC$R 3.1
AND 3121 x.mgA:«;AsH sHi;*1*z%~;,'_;1=-012 12.2 )
- A ?mz"s; CRLP. 18 Véiifin 11/3 432 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE
THE-.OR{¥VEl¥.(}E' mxxxe cocmmuca AND iSSUE op summons TO 'rm;
_PE'I'RS; _Dr1=._ 1£«*H.f)5--PASSEB BY THE ADDL.C..}.{JR.DN.) 85 JMFC, mum,
C..c;:~'z_';:.28?6;'.goo5'vA7N13 QUASH THE ENTIRE PRQCEEDINGS, PENDYNG
AGAINST 'I'Hma;_.
This Petition coming on for orders this day. the Court
T' ~ ' ~ _ ' -made the Vfollmving :
ORE
Based on the compiaint lodged by respondent No.2
‘4 henein. the Crizmt No-.158/2003 was registemd in Brahmavara
Police Station agaiztmt two persons for the offence punishable
V’
-3-
under Section 302 of IPC read with Section 34 of
police afler invesfigatiun, filed ‘B’ report.
informant, she filed objection to mg fB’__mp(ift{ % gig _
kzarned J.M.P’. (1., Udupi.mc:orded’».the;’$%teii1fin¥1§’of’CR¥$I;?1i.its ‘
6 and issuad pmcaess agains§’TVt1z§.f
the case against them for under
Sections 143. 147. 143,1~.%j%s3, 149 cfiPC. The
order of issuancc pf suznmrfifns wV;s;1Ls before this Court
V.i駧uing fiotioe, this Couxt stayed the
pmcseedingsu relates to petitioners 3 to S are
concerned. Court was directed to proceed
%,.petitioner$«V1″”si33.d 2. Accordingly, the pmoeedinga are
petitioners I and 2 who are flu: main
AA 3. “‘i’he matter was numbered as S.C.No.58[20()5. After
the trial Court discharged accused N951 and 2 by the
..o:Hder ciatad 16*’ October 2007. It is needless to mcntion here
V itself that the case against accused Nos.3 to 5 was split up in
/5
Kr’
, 4 ,
View of the interim order passed by this Court. The order of the
trial Ceurt dated 1631 October 2007 dis(:harg’ng acqltsed Noel
and 2 has attained finality. inasmuch as, tltiefiie not
questioned .
4. The Learned advoeates”‘xijJtreag’§i1g ft:-it;
parties have made available the bf eta€eme11tsie.1 ‘A t
to 6 tin” perusal of the The__ véere
considered by the trial. Noel
and 2. These six “4Wit;1ee’ee§{;V::v(i.eL;_ ev.=.–_=,.1 to 6) have not
1:313 3 to 5 herein. They have
N051 and 2. But the Court
bebw, accused Noel and 2 and the
:,01’deIf has; final. Since nothm’ g is said against
V to 5. this Court stayed the proceedings against
.’ on the second look, this Court does not find any
matefiel against accused Nes.3 to 5. The statement of the
” Vfiefiizrxesses are hearsay and vague. Even if those statements are
believed in their entirety, petitioners 3 to 5 cannot be
convicted. The post mortem report Ex.P»2 has not as-1s:i.g;ned the
cause of death since the body was decomposed. For the very
V/’
_ 5 –
mason. the Medical Oficer did not notice any iI1j}i;?_y’ on the
body. In View of the mama, no useful purpose in
contimzing the prosecution against pefifionéfs 3
A<:sc01tiing1y,the fczlkawing order ; 2
The proceeéings in Crime of A
Police Statian (i.e.. c.c.No.237e1 }3VeI.:£i;1;nV§ b{:$'iiVV'ti':¢e fixgof
learned J.M,M.(1., Uclupfl stexidé '
Petition is