Smt Renukamma W/O Gadigeppaiah … vs State By Town Police Harih R on 2 June, 2008

  %    A.V.RAMAKRISHNA, HCGP FOR R1

IN THE HIGH coum' 012* KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE"= 
DATED THIS THE 92140 DAY op' JUNE 2003  f u
BEFORE  %
THE I~iON'BLE Mr. JUSFICE H N P\§.*%G;'%.MOIé4fA;.;\"r§i  

CRL.P.NO.2305 op 21(>9V'%7".'.A_T * 

SMT RENUKAMMA   -- 
w/0 GADIGEPPAIAH KUNDG~0L1srIA';: " 
AGED ABOUT 65 YRS "    _  "
R/A cuxmmmunpux   V
RANEBENNUR g', g *,._m-, «
HAVERI DIST      ' 

 '.1   ..  §fETITIONER

(By Sri : M     % 

"  _ S':Ij'}iT§:*}»:B'iV TOWNVPOLICE HARIHAR
 A 'VDAVANQERE 'DIS?

2 " .SALiMATH
S/0 GIJRUBASAYYA SALIMATH ~
A(';--ED.j2'7-YRS
 5'23»: ~~f31-E.fJSS, 2m) MN .
" ~ .  _ A .. KR NRGAR, HARIHAR
 VDAVANGERE DIST

.. . RESPONDENTS

R2 SERVED)

/)4 V\5'"
\ /v

 



2. Despite service of notice on Respondent No.2

she remained unrepresented. In the additional statement

dated 10.2. 2007 the second respondent states that act:ion--._

is to be taken against the petitioner in accordance  V' V

There is no allegation in what Way and in What ma:nne1'jVt1::le ' 

petitioner is involved in the offence in't'quem__~'.¢n. ,  

allegation of 2"" respondent to   

petitioner without necessary detafie.,,fle;i\\s..nnot  

cognizance of the oflence vagainst..tti1e.."petitioner.i'i "Phe-Trial
Court Without applying its   the

material on   the "request of the 1'"
1espondenVtt'police:ivi..f#;suet1V'pnocess  petitioner. It is not
in dispute ti3at'--at  the 2"" respondent in

her comptaint  the jnristiicfional police has not whispered

 'against'. the petitioner. Even in the additional

   no allegation to implicate the petitioner,

For the. reasons stated above, the foflowingz

ORDER

1″) Petition is allowed.

ii) The proceedings in C.C.No.276/ 2007 on the file
of’I’ria1 Court in so far as it relates to the

petitioner are hereby quashed.

aw

iifl The Trial Court to proceed against accust-id»

No.1 in accordance with law.

Judge ‘ %

131(13)-