Karnataka High Court
Karnataka State Industrial … vs M/S Shimoga Steels Ltd on 2 February, 2009
IN
DATED THIS THE 2% DAY OF,.FEBRii'AR ?';V2C§f}$'.VV @ %
THE HIGH CQURT OF KARNATAKA AT BA§n:%;}iLC:x¢';'fi A.
BEFORE Q
THE HONBLE MR. Jismicfi' 'N.ArJA1~zf§AAVV.i.'-._,
CRIMINAL PETITIQN E~fC}§1972
RETW FERN:
1 .
AND
KARNATAKA S--'{'ATE £NE3'LE$'i'RI*AL_
£NVES'FME.N':'?.AND _. ~
DEVEL<3PMEr~;?? <_:QR'Po'RATiQi\H,TD'
NQ49,;i<H3gN1JA*k;3HA?;*AN'~~.V '
4TH i?'L«;::', '
B,;«3.N1 .
REP B-3:" i'§';S"ism-NAGE'i2TVLE.G4a,L
{By ' 2. VI NAYA ';i:U'MAR. _Q..-S, ADVO GATE}
.. PETETIONER
"3Mf:S SH£MOC3i'>..« STEELS LTD
K,R.fiS2.]E?C3AD,
A " ~ _ Ivis?;~'m:3ALL.Y
" . MYVSQKE" 5f?:6
~93-_%. __I'["§3' CHAIRMAN ANS
MAi'§AGE.J's&3 DIRECTOR
_ SANTHANARAMAN
{BY 8
RESPONEIENT
m.B.'{.RAMAN, Anvo<:;a.TE;
AA «CRE¥.P FELED U;'S.48i2 GREG FRAYENG TO SET ASIDE 01:2
* T=3..<:s
ANNEXURE ''A'' 8:': TC? ALLOW THE CRLJ3'. BY EESTOEING
C:,:CgN0.289Q4f99 QN THE WLE Ci? THE XVHI F;CMM., B'LC3F3E.
EIASH THE ORDER D'i'.iIZ1.i'2,Q0O6 WHICH ES PFZEBDUCED
""t'.'}'{(% 'i¢=,:$M1;*<:f_1-:*,d !\iIHé'gistrat<=: should have awaitm retzlrn
Alflf'aTF3B§?uf':"'{ifid.T'Sh{')1"l}d have r<=:--issned NEW in secure
_»."EV'.L9..gistbaifie has f'mmd fault with camplainant.
_' 'T_h7e1'éf0re, me impilgnerl order cannot be sustained.
This petition, C01"flifig on for hearing, ~ V.
C0u1"'t, made the foilowirlg: K " A
The complaint filed
200 Cr.P.f',. was dis;rn.i§§9.ed T116
Copy of the order '-the trial court
would 2*ev<=:a1_,_ A(m_ issued to
respondent; 21. 12.2806 the
leameeilv acfihiéégte 3nd §bV11ght for time. A3′. 3.00
pm. f.hé:’ dismissed the applicatinra
rej:=:c_t_§ng the’ prayei’ of isélrance of NEW.
ac(:i1.5e(i_” ‘h<..=:–fi:)re the trial court. Instead the learned
Pk?' Qxgéi,/'k " I
3
T2. In the I’€S£l1T., the criminal petition is accefiftacl.
The impugned order is set. aside. ‘W”‘i{*’..v~’~~–‘.(“,§’:’–}”.(._’_’I_”i«”V’fi ”
Magistmte is dimctftti to restore:
and proceed with the case: in QCC{)T(i£1I1C€fi itfitii ‘ia_W.–..
1′ >1 ” >. /V’.
“1d9°
(rm/~