High Court Karnataka High Court

Swajith Gowda @ Sandeep vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 August, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Swajith Gowda @ Sandeep vs The State Of Karnataka on 24 August, 2010
Author: Subhash B.Adi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 24'?" DAY 09 AUGUST 2010' 
BEFORE & " 2 

THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASHV  V' 

CRIMINAL PETITION NcL41'5:':_(291o   _  

BETWEEN:

Swajith Gowda @ Sandeep

8/ o Ashok  _

Aged Major V --. 

R/at No.78, 17"' Cross

41*! Main, 4"? Block V  H

4*" Stage, Basveshwarnage_Lr A _   ' 
Bangalore--5600'Z9     "    .. PETITIONER

[By M/s.S.Bai.an    

AND:

1. The Str1t¢ C-fvKétmé:ta1agi"'}9y
Jeevanbimanaga'ra Police station

   ..... 

V' A ,_W,'o 'Sw3ji'th gowda
 Aged'-v2?'y'eaVrs G
" . "R/at'NG..V,78,:v'17*" Cross
" A 43' Main, 'A1-L" Block, 41" stage .
Basa.V°ésh,Wamagar
Ba11ga}_ore -- 560079 .. RESPONDENTS

  {v}3YiSi*£;--'Satish R Girji, HCGP for 12- 1,
M;N-agendra, Adv. for R2)

 



This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying to quash the all further proceeding and further
investigation in CR.No. 175/10 of Jeevanbimanagar P.S.,
Bangalore City, for the Offence P/ U / S 504 &-506 of IPC.

This petition coming on for admission this day, the C

__ourt
made the following: 9 

O R D E R

Sri.lV£.Nagendra, learned Counsel has ”
appear for respondent No.2 and accord:i11g»ly,& iailtalath if if
for respondent No.2. if f f if f if

2. Counsel for the petitioner.Q:a’sV_wellas for
respondent No.2 submit that, theVAimattef’is. cohnilpromisied and

the proceedings in Crime be

3. ‘l’i1_e filed a complaint in Crime

N 0. 1 75 /20 1 on 1V8.4’§’?iU 3 lhefore the _ J eevanabimanagar

_Po1i.ce,_};3anga1ore'” for the offences punishable under

506 of IPC. The matter is still under

in\festiga_tio’n’;”«._fl’iiVe’offences alleged against the petitioners are

eompo’u.ndableVfA«and further the complainant «– Smtsupriya,

if ” ‘iffiwhoipisppresent before the court, states that, she does not want

tofproseeute the matter, as the matter is amicably settled.

17
:%3′;’;’

4.:-“”=A/

4. Considering the nature of allegation and the
circumstances, I find that, no purpose wouid be served in

continuing the proceedings.

in View of the same, the proceedings*1.fli’nV-Cfiifie M

No.175/2010 registered by Jee\{~an’a’eirnanag’én*’V:»’_@oli.C€.’7.,

Bangalore City, stand quashed.

KNM/–