High Court Karnataka High Court

T N Sridhar vs M R Lokesh on 19 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
T N Sridhar vs M R Lokesh on 19 March, 2008
Author: Dr.K.Bhakthavatsala
1.}  f

1.

GBIAPNO. 101%

mu -nun-nu :6?” In! or Inc: 10032

1-;I_:_ !9!’!-L!lIl.n1’IIl’!l.’.I x. % ” T

cnL.9. KG. 1CI3iI’?fJfJfi.. }
nnmnzmar: ‘ %

1 1:1: sums:

are mm; ‘1-.::. x
man now as *
am NO.19iB.. 1.16. i-ifi5fiSE__BfJfiif!f_ A
Hnssim DIS’l.’_R.ICE.’_ k

mm-1 snx 5;; @911)
AND :

%%%%%
k %s,n3 z4,e:=,naJum
% Man ~A1mu’:’?2%9 warms
ni.’a:Isz3e:3 :’+;Tv.-u%Fu’*aE’»E’aET’1’1’Fu*-51.53
VIELh93′.H_ALL3ltDTTE mm:
L m5r.m;ms~1mim Tfiiflii Tiifii
ms5mLn1s-m;rc-r.

I3 A’s*rm3 V 9′: !!.l..!I.\.\!!i.’1′!|.!f_lL
at-Iemnnnsrpunn Tom POLICE srnrzm
aafinwnnafiirum

nzsnuc-r

_ _-_._.a……-n

. . . Rl?§§DNIJEN’1’§

1 W.-P30. Ifllllll

my 9:1: JLV. nmmuuszme, may ran 32)

cIu:..P rznnn Iris.-tea cn.=2.c 5′! ‘I.’_I-ll

-can PETITIONER rnarnte an-m’r I-ms I-1oN’n:.n: COEIN1′-. ‘!5.fi!

BE fl=’.i!.SED 1’9 .0.!!’.l.£!! 1′!-1.1;; ¢_!Q!l.£L_l|_J_1*l.’.1′ IL!
ON THE FILE OF RBSPONDBNT V’
ifii % fi.’J’.nT.uEfn”rEi”J ‘I.’iF?Ei’nI”IT.-“3 ‘i.I’iTJ’fifi 3E§M.41’i’-‘;_-*-€*$3::~{‘;F~..VI§’f”¢.-__4 V

ms cn1..p. comm mt

fill; GQU!l.’L’ LLADE ISLE ‘ _
Petit ione rfaeuuuecla” $ :La = . ~.__th:|.s couxt

praying for qugefifig §a§§«ekeei,,%ec;;.~.no.23;2ooe of

Holenereaigauxée: “”v.:>/Stetian, for the

-5199.-gee ‘§e’et’}§i.on 417 end. 468 at

petitiorneufaccuaeci and after he

emit the ‘jet the instance of rival entrepreneur

hag filed an false case. It in futthor

that the Kexnateka State Electronic

m 1.: G-cgqgetzion I.td., has issued a. letter:

v 7′. ___

éertinyiug 1:1″: a ea-astifiate has been issued in

1 CII.P.NO. IOIMII

respect at 1!.R.I.okuh, [tha complainant] tram
EDNICS, for thn couzao advanced t:1:4L:l.11_;l.1V1§g..:’_:’..;l.n
amaze: educaticn held :2:-.-..’-2 4.’.h2D0.. ‘ ‘ V A’

rt

efa «(am

and thurefoxa ii: in aui:|nii:i:ociMthni: .*’i:iae”:j;a””is–.V 11:5 2

merit in tho complaint.

the Pkziod in quoatimi1~.__;l.a t:flé 15′;V:11.200«II
tor the courao Hnmcaifi to: which
the accused no ngfifhoziiéy. .V I conduct: the

QOTIJEQH u

4. Vfiifice’ thé’ Have rosiiitircci i éiiai
and takqrg up’%L.:§:kkinfi-fimlgation. at this atago. 1

;;fi”§’e..Anov-‘[§§:’¢c;eTl: g;ound”£*6t quuhing the FIR.

.iI:q”‘t’:hI;q’.’i:”§_ia.ii1t:; the patition £3.11: and the limo