High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Shanthamma vs State Of Karnataka By … on 2 July, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt Shanthamma vs State Of Karnataka By … on 2 July, 2009
Author: Subhash B.Adi
£N THE PHGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED 'I'H£S THE semi QAY OF ..¥ULY 2009 2' 'f ~.
BEFORE '  

THE HOPFBLE MR.JUSTICE.:SUBHA£§I.V{"§}P§i}!   

 

cmmzw. Pmmox     
BETWEEN: 'T ' A T» 

1 Sm' SHANTHAMMA
AGED ABOUT 3'? YEARS; 
w/<3 SR1 U H NAGARAJ..__ 

2 SHUHNAGARAJ  
AGED ABOUT 47aYEARS,~--  . 
S/O DASAHA£€U1§£A~!AH,§; ,    
NOJ13, NALLUIQ1§.EmLLI'WL£AGE,  * 
WHITE      .
K.R.¥'URAiNE HQBLI,  .   :  
BANGALOI-"<v1¥}.Efi.:5f§IVTA£.[_JI(.V  ~ : .. PETI'I'IONERS

{By 3:1. H1§ANTH};":"g;tgJA, _ *
AND:  ' V   

1 STATE 0VF*~KARNATAKA_§Y  
MAi£ADEVA?LIRA 'POLICE STATION,
BAQNGALORE. "  .

V" 1.2 V " « ,fi.c:».B3UiiA1§zEsHwARI

'  wgo«vz§Ac-zmaéa,
 R/A'?.3e.,5mV"r.§A.:N ROAD,
~. ESK 3&9 s:t.:_A.<3~,E, NEW KEMPEGOWDA LAYOUT,
' mrnarsugvg,
EiANC3£\LOF:'E -- 550 085.
..  .. RESPONDENTS

” fay slmomigppa, HCGP ma R1 815
s;~;.M._R.r§,m.:uNDA GOWDA FOR R2}

THIS CRLP FILED U/8.482 CR.P.C BY THE AWJOCATE FOR

:*mE..TPET;T1oNERs PRAYING THAT THIS I-§O§~é’BLE COURT MAY BE’.
“F?LEASED TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN FIR IN
“-..C;R.NO.381/08 BEFORE MAHADEVAPURA POLICE, BANGALORE

REGD, ON 21.10.08 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S. 506, 420, 206 OF’
IPC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURVI’ MADE THE FOLLOWING:

0 Q B § §
Petitioners have sought for quashiug of
Crime No.38}./2008 registered %;»:ah..dev.;;;.%..,..; F’. V
Bangalore on 21.10.2008 for: an

Sections 506, 420 and 406 of

2. Complainant the oevner of the
property. She hadApmehaAse(fi_ with her minor
son. However, ‘stetzfng that, they will get
the khata took all the original
No.2 executed the Power
of 1 ~– his Wife and under threat,

the accused of the complainant on the blank

3 amake d1″”‘the same for their benefit. On these

‘eI_Iegér.i:io;1s._. ‘has been registered and the investigating is

n V. 3. Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits

alleged ofience. amending to the complainant herself, is

and the complaint is filed in 2008, that too, the accused

$0.2 had issued notice on 12.9.2605 interalicz for executing the

Ieg’ste;ted sale deed in his favour. He submitted that. he is the

.4 st.

{.