-1 SYEDA "fasivzmsw
STATE OF KARNATAKA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE.
DATED mzs THE 19TH DAY op' JUNE 2003 --f f i
BEFORE
':'1-IE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE H N _3.\5x°x(}AN§Qu'i;IAN.::Vtjf%éV' '
C--RL.P.NO. 565112906 X
C . .NO.5 06
KAISAR@ASGAR AHAMED %
S/OJAFFAR MOHIDIN '
AGELD go ms, X I
PRESENTLY R[A'I' 1§:1i'YAD*3_1'4.37 , '
PB.NO.28308'
i*'0RM.':2RLY 1i~:_AR)._
--_ -mo SIRAJ
._22 YRS; 12'/<12 BOMBAY
BU1"i;.£.)l'N(.;': ROAD, 9TH cxoss,
P H_C.~0LoNY
" = ».'1_'UMKU1'~1'
BY TELAK PARK
POLICE, TUMKUR
RESPONDENTS
[By Sri : K R RAMESH FOR R1
Sri: A.V.RAM1\KR}SHNA, HCGP FOR R2)
P)
CRLP FILED U/S482 C3R.P.C BY ‘}”I””IE ADVOCATE
FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT Tms HON’BLE
comm’ MAY 1319: PLEASEI) TO SET AS§DE THE ORDER.’
m:13.1.9e IN ISSUING PROCESS AND QuAs;~1~~._:–:.§:Vi’
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.253/O6 ON THE FILE=– €)F’ €151»-:3-A *
III ADDL. Cid (JRDN) 35 JMFC–IV COURT, TUMKIJVR:V.VV V V’
CRLP NO 2880 OF 2006
1 REHANA W/O GHOUSE PEE R~.,
END CROSS, IDIGA :f’*.:1§i)H1\?£;i;2K, frzimguia.
2 SYED JEELAN ._ .»
S/Q SYED NAZIR _ ‘
AGE 40
131’1sLocm)ci?m;Ar’t:’1*§::; ”
CHITRAQURQA;-~’:–_V_
3 SYE;.DA.MU%BEE;pgA
W/:O.JEEL!&N, .
2ND__ CRGSS’ :I}I..G’A._ “”O_H’ALLA,
‘mM1«:u1.~z. ‘
* PETITIONERS
(By sg; S G BHAGAWAN: FOR N SRIN was 69
‘ . ~ ” M..R S}~iASHiD’PiAR)
1 SYE{)F; YA$MEEN
D/QLSYED SIRAJ
» A AGED/22 YEARS
‘ “ii/0.BOMt$A’! sumuzme ROAD
= CROSS, P H COLONY,
TUMKUR.
T STATE 91? KARNATAKA
av TILAK PARK 901,101:
TUMKUR.
RESPONDENTS
/V
J”
(83; Sri : K R RAMESH FOR R1
Sri : A.V.RAMAI{RISHNA, HCGP FOR R2)
CRLP FILED U/8.482 CR.P.C BY THE AD’v’QCA’F5§3___
me THE PETITIGNERS PRAYING THAT THIS’ *
COURT MAY BE PLEASE!) TO SET ASIDE ..THE {)RD_ER ._
li)’I’.18.1.(}6 IN £SSUING PROCESS} AND: QU’ASz~.I “mg
PROCEEDINGS IN <:.c.No.2s3/oegon _'§'H–E'*Fi'LE~._Oi? ;
1iIAl.)I)L. <;..J(J2<.1)1~4)ez. JMHJ-IV ceu1afi'e.*~'i'uM;g'u:<p. A ~
These Criminal Petit;io1i.~3.,:VL4'£:<)_%mi,x1A5g" Q11' 125;»
this day, the court made the fo11owi_31g:_ ' " ~ '
in these prayed for
setting 18.1.2006 in
C.C.No.253}:.2§)€):_6 V)A»dd1.C.J.(Jr.Dn) and
JMFC–¥$7 eeénizance of the ofience.
2. V”*I¥_’i3.*::;_t complained to the 2″‘
ggeixlst the petitioners in both these
fee ‘A-z::Vfi’r°:CtI:’:e__ punishable under Section 504, 306 and
i’ IPCx.” i2§5’§espondent registered the cosnplaint five-n
V . by Vibe “—i3*'”1;espondent in Crime No.164/2002. After
.f;n::¢;stigauoa the jurisdictional police fled B mport.
‘flgegfieeed by this report of the police, first respondent filed
VT ” ‘aj3rotest memo. The ‘1″ria1 Court under the impugied order
” rejected 13 report and had taken cognizance of the offence
and proceeded with the matter. Aggrieved by this order of
6)/«/”‘
For the reasons stated abeve, the follewizlgz
ORDER.
Petitions are hemby allowed.
The impugned order dated M113%§%1A1;.:;o~é§
c..c. $10,253] 2006 is he1§§by §1i1a§s’1:¢d;AA ~ {_f = ‘
The matter is rczzzanded ti) w’if}.i< V
a lfiaerty to the first' "1°&::V$ pondefi£_f;(5'*f£3€ éfipfifitest
memo in '~§Q1mf €:1I'1d"thVVCI'f:€l.fiZ6I'
the Trial Court gmyeed._ T'm';;g;¢.omance with