High Court Karnataka High Court

Smt Taramathi vs The Sub-Registrar Of Births And … on 26 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Smt Taramathi vs The Sub-Registrar Of Births And … on 26 August, 2008
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
, 3 . 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 

DATED THIS ms 25*" may or Aususr;L'2cx>3%F%j f  

BEFORE 

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE MOHAN;$QAmfANAé0UbAR 5

CRIMINAL PEVWLQN    

BETWEEN :

1.

Smt. Talamatbi _ 1
W/0 Dhananjaya Verzlfikar
Agcd about ‘£70 ycaltfi . V *
Occ : Hon.-fiehoid Work

R ”

Slj:ahap1i17._– _ _
Bc’§ga’i.1m’D;i$ ” ‘h

2. Sureska–,_ . ._ ._
Sic: Dhananjaya V”»3rr1t:kar
~ dfigeii about”53V ;_»,f¢ars
‘- O($é’A:

% _R/.;}”{}a1;’£’:”::e§1apura Galli
V T.

–‘.VBe1ga.:;m’*:3isu~sct.

“:Jm§$h ‘
Sf,O_ Dhananjaya Vemekar

V’ * Aged about 49 years

: Agriculture

V “R/0 Gancshapura Galli

Shahayur
Belgaum District

” 4. Gajanana

S] 0 Dhananjaya Vemekar
Aged about 4′? years

Dec : Agicultune

R] o Ganeshapma Galh
Shahapur

Belgaum {District

5:}. Pxadeep

Sfo Dhananjaya Vcrnekaf: ‘

Aged about 40 yeaka
Doc : Agiculture ”

R/0 Gancshapum

Shahapur ” .

Be1gaum.,Eé–1§’tm_.ct.

6. Smt. V _ _
W10 Vilaé’-Gs;gg:nkar*» ~
AgétiT’ab;§;1t 427: 3′;-w:==a’r;’3«

0:22 1′ Hofififiheid \&’m’k.._
Rf-Q
Shahapxu’ *
Bclgaum Dim-_;c’t_ ”

‘?~.’ . .. ….. .. .

V” $176 Dhananjaya Vemckar

A ” ~ .V ‘AgctI,ahVd’i3.t 50 years

Business
=,Rfo’ Gémétshapum Gaiii

‘ A Shah.ajp;1r

Bc}g§u 1m District.

i ~ (By Sr; L R333, Adv.,)
.~ }The Sub–Rt?:$”.s11’ar sf

Births an Deaths
Mafleswaram Sub-=Divisic::n

. . Petitioners

Bhashyam Park

Bangalort-«S60 003. ..R:~.s§on§i¢;iLt’% *

This C:r1.P. is flied under ‘

of Cr.P.C. by the advocate for the pe,tit_3.oi1ei*s_ ‘ praying
this Honblc Court may be pieased 71:3’ set. “::1sic1:: th:~=:*1e
Cri.Mi$c. Pet. N<::.5?'/2004 msfom .c'.*imiI1a3

miscellaneous petition to its filef — '

This Cr1.P. cfi f§:~ . ._a1cv1uL1n13i.ssionv,V'AAt1ix:£»5 day the
Court made the f¢31k;wii;?g:~–~. ' 1 ' _

Noticév dispéhsed with since the
a_fdé:?;:A.is :=sIitI1t:Sut noticr: to: him.

By order, the Com": below has

péfifiorfhsiiice the petitioners were absent.

" « or tn:-sir advocate were absent, it is

._ the Court to dismiss the petition for

fie -vgérosétrufion. Thus, the order cannot be said ta be

V * :a.rrof1ieous.

3. I-imwever, certain accaptabia and Valid masons.-

are aasigxed befora this Court in this petifimn explaining

V5

*4.

the absence of the petitioners b€:f{)I'(‘: the

Accepting the said cause, this Court propéjécsi

the impugieti ercier to give o1:ir:;’1r1mrc -‘ta {hex ‘ j

petitianars. Accordingly the oriittiii
The iznpugied erdér ii;Vijashed.V

C.Misc.Ne.5?/2004,;:«is_ the fiiehfi the Court;

belcaw. The the Trial

0:;-urt an }_,_;.00 a.g_1. and

take nece$Sé:1’y_iV $”t§:ps,. ‘ “~ . __ _ ‘

Péfitiéiz accordirigly.

Sd/-

Judge

. *¢kfi?ii ii