Loading...

Purushotham vs State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Purushotham vs State Of Karnataka on 1 February, 2010
Author: K.N.Keshavanarayana
1
IN THE HIGK COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATE!) TI-£18 THE 1%? DAY 0? FEBRUARY 2010 

BEFORE

mm I-IOK'BLE ma JUSTICE K N KE8HAVAHAR--£'§&'AN.¢i§ "  

cR1m:aIAL PETITION No. 34fs2'e3=' 2£¥o6_    

BE'I'WEEH:

?L:RiISHO'1'HAM,

S/O. LAKSHMIPAT}-ii,

AGED AI£3{}{§'1' 50 YEARS,

Nc::.5:2, KADIRENAHALLI,

BSK 2N9 STAGE,       _
BANGALC)RE--~?9. V "   j' -;';';.f>ETfI3'1ONER

[BY SR1. LAKsHM;KA;:s:%fH RAG; ;f3;D§f{§:C:A'TE).5

1. STATE 0'?4;<ARNATAI<;A;"'_.»LV
BY JAYANAGAR .I§'.€I)L3E()  3TA'I{'ION,
 REE, BY STATEw..PUBLf£C PRGSECUTOR,
'  HEGH QQURT CQMFLEX,
V BAN@ALQRE~.,

 2.  .gL.?L3«R§;é?r:Ax;éH';

Sffi). L:'s.TE: --,.(:H1K2{ALIr»zGAIAH,
. .5%..G}E'.-D 'A..'8{)'U'§' 62 YEARS,
 915:1'; _NG.2G1f1 1,

A   ?'?"€'A' (32035, W MAIN,

 '% RPC'A_'LAY€)UT, HAMFINAGAE 21%} STAGE;
7VI.}AYANAGAR, BANGALORE M 49;
% .;..RE}S?GNDEN'I'8

  SR1. BALAKRISHNA, HCGP FOR 2:,

SR3 SHANKAR S. BI-'LAT, AQVGCATE FGR R2)



2

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UMBER SECTIQN

432 CR.P.C. PRAYING TC) QUASH THE §J12o<:1a:E:_:a::1\I<3.:sT»+.1:\:._V
CRNG. 21?/2005 OF JAYANAGAR RS. PENDENG Q12': »'£'!s{jIi: 
FILE 0? ii ACMML, BANGALORE AS AGAINST A_(§C'US;-if-L2  _

NCL3.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON    V

THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE   
§.?..B,_____I?v__',..Ff.3....._.3-3 Ak   A   % 

In this pctitien fiied under    the
petitioner heréixtt    __P-$0.3M  PC

No.16152/2005 €)I1._th6 fimfgr tml»11L"LA;:§1:::i¢na1 CMM,

Bangalora, has,    the criminai

prosecutiori iai3j:1::.?:~ed  

Responciezgté Néi.'   filed 3 private compiaint
urigier  V206 "  against Accused Nos. 1 to 3

 .<:;fi'e:A: 1c,*e ..zii;11c_ier Section 420 of {PC}. The leaxneci

  }\2Iagi$'t;{a§;te,  Evhom the compiaint was presented,

_V:"..._I:*¢§§e§:f:red   under Sectisn 156(3) cf Cr.P.C. t9 the

Q_"v;§Vi;1'*if8«:{Aié£i{sna} mslice for invesiigatiagfi, and report. Ptusuani

  refereace, the Jayanagar Police regstemd cage ':21

 No.21?/2005 and tcoiqsap investigation It is at

 thai stagé, the petiiisner appmachfid this Cent": undasr

,.)\ I
2""



3

Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court by Order dated o5.09.2Q{§§A_V
stayed the investigation by the Respondent-Pcsli<:e__.;":"'£%:.'  

maanwhile, a_ memo datfid i22.()9.200 8m was 3
learned counsel far Respondsnt
lettcr dated 30.08.2008 sent hy’h_ig:

by Speed Fast ret:urne :é T_
endorsement ” Addresfiy it is clear
that ‘(ha gm mspofifieglt in the
case before: in 2008 itself.

in spite of has not taken any
steps to bxfifiig of the complainant

on resort}. Emu fietifiéxz. Section 482 Cr.P.C3.,

§r:}1¢rei:1’£;uas}:1ing 駖Vf,1;¢__’C:x*i3:r3iz1a1 Pmsecutior; based on a

1f)i”§§I$1tf§”£:{)IIi}3i;E3.iI),f!’»iS seught, the complainant is a proper

and in his absence, the High S0111′:

Qééimai qmafih the proceedings in axercise sf pewer zmder

=;T1′;r.P.C. Since the mrignai camgiainani baa

_r;?.i{%;c1 130 steps have met: taken :0 brizzg his Iagal

feprésentatives an recerd, the mattar has ahagiad.

4

Therefore, this petitioil is diSII1i$Sf:é with fibefizy tg

petitienér ta renew his request if need arises in futLii’t:J ..

KG}?

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