High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri Ramesh S/O V.Ramanand vs The State Of Karnataka By S J Park … on 5 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Ramesh S/O V.Ramanand vs The State Of Karnataka By S J Park … on 5 January, 2009
Author: N.Ananda
IO ,   

gr»: 'mg HIGH cazzwr 09' KARNATAKA AT 8AN--A§§;a.iV,C§}%'éi   "

DATES T}-HS THE 05TH DAY 01? JAN3JHA_féY*VI.:2_('§VG€9i'.V &L

BEFQRE
THE H(}N'BLE MR.J»U_S'T.1_CE fw.A_NAr~§i:;x  

CRIMINAL PETITEONV .£\:éj";%3323 CF 2r30%?% 

BETWEEN:

1

31:2: RAMESE? ':3; C; 'V: RAhé£SB\§ANQ> ._
AGED A:aats:;T.V;2;s 'y*E3A§:~.:; " " 
R/AT :~z<:.*.:.34;:;;, ::+.«zAI.<ém*:. NELEEEL. '
TH1MI\fi'AiAH.GEiRi3EN;fR.T'. Nfififiafi 
p3ANc;A:h.::m;::',=;:s0 saga;  '.  

 PETWIONER

{By  R G{A3i'£5E;vL1%,E'5n§i.?AI'a§.'f"~«E§§ASS{)CIA'i'ES, ABVOCATE ;

AN}? :

1

THE S'I$1.TE €}§"V-K;9€.E%E\i§i'E;A§<A

«gm S J F/'AE€K_POL§C::'3
 "5AN<;f:.LoRE'  ..... 
V  £239; B'f~STz'~&'TE ?LiBL:c PRQSECUTOR
~ .. VH1-GR c,:Q%;5RT BUILDING
. BA_I§*Z,3vAE..G~RE.~

 sm _N'1;£.z;T¥sHM: NARKSEMHAIAH

 ASS'? 'E§E3B«E?€SPECTCJR

A' ' ..:~3AN4f0é GP' SJ. ?A¥~3K POLICE), PENDING on THE FILE are

THE; VI AC:MM., EVLCPREZ.

This petitiml, coming 011 for hearing, this day, the

élcurt, made: the fcizliowing:



Kw'?

ORDER

The petiticmer is ar3:ay<::d.. __as $31 'A V'
C.C.N0.3'}'591/£2006 pending ~ :1'
ptinislzable zmdel" Sections ":Ir1eA
has approached this §t{§L1rt ' Ififflcfigedmgs
inter alia, c011te11ding "i.i',;%2g:t.A filed agajimt
the p<3fi'fi0I}CI'u z110ti§iE:i§:('V}; agellcy has
filed high handed acts
comn1it tsjd" bf " petitioner had been

assaulteci Latidv S:. §111…"~~'J'of Rs.40,000/»~ which the

'~ had 1{épt«——é;*1 his vehicle was taken away by

_i:1::e "Vp(2li_€:e,Q"~ _ th€1%:fo1*€, contirmatioxl of criminal

'ihéfeze the <:<)u::'t beiaw would be abuse of

. VpI'()C€S§":§ cf law.

V’ . I have heard learned Counsel for petitioner and

ieéiuned Govemment Pleads? for the State.

3. In 3. pstitiszx filrcd unéez’ Sect:ion 482 Cr.P.C.,t:o

quash the charge sheet J contents 0f dotztunerzts filed

5. The defences avagilabie to petitionsr “~ V.

ceurse of trial, cannot be considered tg ‘€1:::1a:§_f1. ‘i:l’3 eT

proceedixlgs.

6. In the <::ir<;:Lunsta11ces;_, xvifiaoifl: goip,–g.AiI1to '1"~h'é:% V

merits of the case, I held thé»fL'j»fiiere a19"e:~._1":é:)T to
quash the 13roceedifig€., fjétifiolz is

dismissed. Howevtzrt fit ixiadé' ' '.:(_:}€3I' that the

obse1'vati(}z1s {1V1i.éi;fT:L«*;:' héreiffz " iiot:…1§e ccrzstrued as

axprassiaiiflf fiiélfiifi of {in case during

/:

.: »

su13seqii§:1’£”stag€£€I’ thé’ i111p1_1g1<::d.

%%%%% Judge