1.
E 95 5
IN THE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF .
BEFORE
THE HOIWBLE MR JUSTICE IIULIIRAIDI E
CRIMINAL REVISION PETETIONVINOI 145/7?IOQ6.../
BETWEEN:
PRAMOD s/0 SURESH---fiADEIDA'JAR.._'~.,C"~I_
AGE; MAJOR, occ: AGRICA_ULT.I,IRE "
BASAPPA s/o_RAR.APP.;AwGUIGITAL?'--.._ .
AGE: MAJOR,?__O(3;G': AGRICULTURE"- "
SHIVAJAREA s:,'_/CG SA'RI-IAI$'IéA: KUDEIKERI
AGE: M_AJ0R;.VIoc'C:;A_ AGRICUILTURE"
MARUTIII 'S/' 0' EAf'R ISjIAR'RA"KIJDDIKERI
AGE: MAIGR, oC_C:..AGRIC'UETURE
RAMU _s/ 0 "sA1$INA.t~RAvKUEDIKERI
AGEII/IAJOR, GCC; AGRICULTURE
I :AARLINAESA,(OJMARUTHI KUDDIKERI
__AGE': MALIOR,A,_(.)'CC AGRICULTURE
s.AI§_ITosI_»I MARUTI-II KUDDIKERI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
VEANEURAMU KUDDIKERI S/O KUDDIKERI
=fA_GE':~_MAJoR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
ARV'
9. PARUSHARAMA S/O RAMANNA KUDDIKERI
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
10. ARJUNA S/O YALLAPPA GUDIYAL
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE
11. RAD}-IAKRISHNA S/O SADASHIVA GANAVA
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: AGRICULTURE; ' '
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF NYASARGE
MUNDGOD TALUK _
(By Sri C H JADHAV, ADV.,)
1. STATE OF RARNATAKA_... , 'I
BY MUNDGOD POLICE; MUN_DCw.O'D'_--.._
REPRESENTED B}\f~"'PIIE'-- STATE PUBLICPROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT EIIILDING.._V«..___
BANGALORE; --5eOOO'i '
2. NAGARAJ E\I1N.GAPPA"KURIHAR'
AGED ABOUT 25 yEA;RS«. "
OCC: AGRI'C.U"LTURE 1 - _
R/O NYASARG_I', AIUND.GOD TALUK
NORTH CANARADISTRICT RESPONDENTS
(B-Y SRIYUTI~_IS.P.H'.~..(}OTKHIi\IDI, I-ICGP FOR R1,
S.S;= I<OT_I"AND_vINAYAKA S. KOTI, ADvS., FOR R2)
('3f3._:I:I2PVPTI'I;.:E:T)}: U/S397 r/w 401 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR THE' PETITIONER RRAYING THAT THIS I-ION'BLE COURT
'4.«.1';=gI;AY-».13E PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DT.30.5.05 IN
, -..C;C..é\IO.'146/O5 ON THE JMFC., MUNDGOD.
- 'THISA PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
':A.V'1'}---!.I,§3..v('3_(3)UR'{' MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ll?'
ORDER
In this petition, petitioners have sought to set asi.réletttiivejorderf’
passed by the JMFC, Mundgod, in c.c. No.Ai46/05–daté§..3o.io5,Vo5:.”
2. The respondent No.2 filed compiair.-tit the
petitioners on 13.03.03 before the-.__Mun”cigotd pceliccjgge
No.123/O2 for various offences undertHSe.ctions 1′?l7,s;.48, 341,
324, 323, 504 read with S’. V’I’h.e».tVp’o1ice report
against which a protest Learned
Magistrate taking process.
3. Accor petitioner No.5 had filed a
complaint against and 6 for the offence under
S.302 of IPC. 3 has filed the complaint
fcsisely agajinsti’~the only to harass them. The learned
cognizance without looking into the factual
veracity ‘and of the same which is erroneous.
‘Police are said to have filed B report after
No such piece of evidence is produced regarding the
‘V J”
3′ sustained by the complainant. It appears that it is an
W.
afterthought who made a complaint to retaliate the petitioners and
also petitioner No.5 is said to have filed a complaint againstllthe
second respondent. Hence, the revision is allowed.
cognizance by the learned Magistrate against the
issuance of summons is quashed.
sac*