Smt. J Nandini W/O Sri Gajendra vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 October, 2011

0
28
Karnataka High Court
Smt. J Nandini W/O Sri Gajendra vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 October, 2011
Author: B.V.Pinto
I'/5V"

IN ".i'HE HIGH COURT OF' KARNATAKA KI' BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 1.455" DAY OF OCTOBER 201 1.

BEFORE

THE} HONBLE MRJUSTICE B. V.  . H

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1 3.42 01?’ 20 =

éuFE_MHH

M1sc.cRL.No.13,7

BETWNEEN:

SM’1′.d.NAND1N1 _
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS _
W/O SR1 GAJENDRA » ., –

R/O NO. 1200/13 T
12’m.MA1N ROAD

13RA§§As}aNA{§.:>.g ” ‘ » V ”

RAJA;:1NAGAR *
BANGALQRE»5’60” Q1 {)_V

(,3? gtégl 2VOCATE}

* féme; s§’:;:é;5;:*r«jA’§§? KAE?;.NA’i’A§<L.i&

323%; §2};g::<:?~1:zi;a zssamz S'§1:?'¥T§QN
E§4"3Xfi{§.A"f%:s.:.({}E{§_;:

EiE3PE?;$%:N’E’%3E} BY T§~~§§::

x. AA ;fé7§}X’E’:§_~Z E-‘3§_E§i3L§€ §”E€®SEi€i’§L”E7{}E%
* E*§E_{3rEt§ C€:}i;T§’~?;'”§ B’UEL§}E§\1Cz
EBAN CvALGE{EZ~56G {EC} E

. . PETETIONER
{COE\/£E’v’fC}N EN BOTH}

§%.§EZSPGN§3*ENT
ECQEVEMON ZN BO’E”§*§}

“J

(BY SR1 RAJA SUBRA}’v’1ANYA B}-{AT, HCGP)

TPIIS CRLP. IS FILEEZI} UNDER SECTION 482 _C__R.P.C.
PRAYIE\IC:- T0 QUASH TE-IE INVESTIGATENG PROCEEIETEEGS
PENDING IN’ CR.NO.6zZ»6 REGISTERED BY E’Ef?ZN’fP§-V

BANGALORE}, ON 14.09.2010. PENDING ON _'”§};ifi&’f’,1_LEi;__OE’

‘IT’HE VII ACME/I. BANGALORE.

THES M1sC.1″”Eimmfi2.

SECTION 482 01%’ cmac. PRAYING TO’ .sT,r_w-I;AL;,’–EfijL1jRT§;E:R
PROCEEDINGS IN CREME NO.64i’6, _F:’1?;ND1N»g ‘0_1:\: ‘1’m–:.’§*=*.J:’;:::

01? PEE3a\JYA POLICE STATION, *B,a;1’x€GA1.,oEf:Ei,” ‘:’>£e;’:’~£DzNc:.,
DISPOSAL 01:’ THE: ABOVE x::;21:x/£11\a:rxL §>’Erv1″rT:.mz,,VV’1ws THE’

INTEREST OF JUSTICE ANI)”{iQ§UITY. _
‘1’HC£S CRLP. AEEQNG w’I*:’}«i_j’3./1}:’s£:. cRt.’.”‘A:3PL:’CAT10N

COMING ON FOR AD:v£1S:31Q–r~s. ’13{«:»§S”~%rJAY, ‘ma COURT
MA’DE)’£’I–iI3 I-*OLLOWING:; ‘ ‘ = ” .

:._f1’h0ug}iV’1i1;i:s fiied in February 2011, the
matter Vvcanae the Court on 06.07.2011, on

wtE€–§chL’date§ t.iIe*<)V}§j_g3&<:}«:s ijme was graxlted to efrompiy with

' Uti}2.(: e:3__fi"i<.:'e..V Aigbjections. On 1038,2011 th€3:e $93.3 :10

"rejpi"eseri{.at:i1an far {he pe<'€,§E§0:1{3§. H<;:s.'zeve;:, this élmmi.

haé:(§..g%z1z:V€ie€E 3. 133%. §3pp0z"%;:L1n§f.jg.

2, G1': $218529} E agaiiz ilhfi Eiiéififii' 'i}«.»':%?;f§ <:a§§:'2:{i$ but:

fthe Counsesi prayetd far {firms and ii w::1,:aa §E}.fO£'E1'1€é ':0 the

'3
_"-3-

Counsei that today 1.6., an 14.10.2011, the matter W11}
bf? disposed 0f, even if ha 18 absent.

3. ‘I’oday, the learned Counsfzi fer the pe?.i{1£r§fi§r is

unabie to say whether the investigation £59§V__c’dI1é.};>1.ej.€.33:1

charge sheet is flied. Hencg p it

paiitioner is; moi: i1’lt€r€Sf;<;'d in p':oS§:cTL:i.i'r1g._th.é'Ca§:E;..« :7]

Accordingiy, the pe{i'_§ii:n is €i'iSH;ESSCd,"«:§Vi€h "ii.b€'rt3z'

to the petitioner to file frf3Sh…}h"§:A-f3ti{i'i'€)1_'}, _i_f'h'c:~i§3 advised.

In View Of i.hé'VC?iSffli?3S:a1 main petition,

Qéiifgt

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here