Shivakumar Agarwal S/O Shirodi … vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 January, 2009

IN ml: HIGH cwm 012* KARNATAI-{A AT 

msmlza TI-{IS ma am my 01:' Jmmatéy  5 "   ,

BEF0Hr£O       
'rpm HUWBLE = O  

 


Bhmnzh I-§.au£E1@._La':::ij.?",.
_~E'.ao.2; 190 fies: .m.1aLd

'B1'1¥£fLafiy9ut

%  ass, ...mm1ozmRs

 &'.Adv.. for

 K Raddy, Adv. ,1

   m.,._.n;  "

   State afKarnatalm
   Q  By Mam Pblioe Station

Bazjre.

2. C.P.Tayal

Aged about 53 years
3,! a.H.K'1"aya1

---nu-1r'I§.l"l!\l"I mun  OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HSGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH Ci

Salaharchard



(By sn:B.Bana1uis1um, PI{3GP'fi:u'R-1     
Sri Pawn Cha.ndra Sheztty,  4f¢r*R-2]   V 

This criminal petitism  u,.I~.;.,4*~a2«. :.':.z~;1==,c:,
praying to me: aside the arda  25.3;*2$§3!{ pginsecfi'
by VI ACMM in C.C.Ko.2.139l20G4i   the
application filed 1.1! 3.320(2) 'ad {:33 ea!'  cs-.20. be
allowed and nefer t11e,¢;aseéVAVib  £'.,M.M,  in
place tha cane baiora   and clause the

This  mm W   éian this day, the

 . . ' .      

  up fiar heanng' , lea;-M

   @r& Caramel for aecanci

 subzmt' that the part1es' have settlad

 an  mxnplainant Ins not supported the

 V' case   'p}osacuti+an. That dispute hctween the:

......... . ..,..:.n. V. m-mun-nun nlun LUUKI OF KARNATAKA I-HGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA I-IIEGH 1

%  2. The Iearngad trial judga has mgecm the
 under Section 320 C:-.P.C. by wzlding that
V. the afimogs ':1!/med against amused {petifiorum hmwe.-in)

m. '



coznpoundable. W

3. an' M.T.R'n.nm'ah, ?    

appear1;ng' for peut1o' ' new r9.1®_   ' 

Suprme Court     [Nikhfl
Mwcharzt Vs.  ._ tipuian and
azwther] and  and oflrnem

Vs. State of   oomendcd that

.....,...... n...-m ;._u-gar or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA men COURT or KARNATAKA HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA men c

thi  under Section 482
Cr.P.C Em   if it is mum um
pa1'ms' betweeuthem.

% k%    ism-ad =  %« vV"!"'C§§*:.2me1 wcmld submit that 'Secharn'
 limit or efiwt the: powm' under
  §{P.C.

V _» V    The mm Crnmel fin" the amnd mspansaient
   zmpport the abmne sutmma' inns.

5. mm Iearnaad Gcvemzmza;-¢z1;t Advocate wouid
submit that power imam Saotim 482 Cr.P,,C. tofiquash
J

m. 



the pruoee-ding on the grcuncl tlmt 

campoundable, has to be spar?ql5r   "   M

7. The pawn' af this 

Cr.P.C. has to be spar?1t1g.-'39  V 

power urxlar 3ect.1::' n   the
prooeed'?@ an the   of dbpum

    J

:3.    held in the gamma
  cf mmprnm'm:: of mm
beaten» 1.:      imelfwuuld not he eummm

   that mm' c undm swam' 482

Cr;F.C..__~'§a.L'«:iiaoeaswy m prevent abuse of pat% cf

' H " 'T  £'..o1;:-i s&r"otI2m'vria-e ta: swmeends crfjuatice.

..... ....-?_.nx.A... us m-munannn nnun \...\.JUlH Ur IKAKNATAKA HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA E-HGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH 1

9.Int1'zem.sennhnnd,itap@:~a.tmrewaarc:ivfl

 dispute bctwerm parfim. It appears second respondent

–.- u-w-u . .

(first iflztaaxzit -~ CW-1] had. executed gal poww of
atm-may in fivaur cf firat petitiorym-‘ to elm] with his