Dismissed

Sri. Madan M v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC5 Dec 2022CRL.P/3425/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In Crl.P. No. 3425 of 2017 filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the court disposed of the petition which was filed to quash an FIR. Since the learned counsel for the petitioners was absent and a memo for retirement was filed, and the matter seemed of little interest to the petitioners, the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution. No substantive legal issue was engaged.

What the court decided

AI extract

Sri. Madan M Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 3425 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3425 OF 2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI MADAN M. AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, S/O. MURUGAN, R/AT NO.4, NANDARAM SINGH LANE, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 37.

¶9

Digitally signed by V MANJUSHA BAI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶10

SRI MURUGAN G. AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, S/O. LATE GOPAL PILLAI, R/AT NO.4, NANDARAM SINGH LANE, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 37.

¶11

SMT. KASTHURI AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS W/O. MURUGAN G. R/AT NO.4, NANDARAM SINGH LANE, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 37.

¶12

SMT. AMUDHA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS D/O. SRI MURUGAN, R/AT NO.4, NANDARAM SINGH LANE, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 37.

¶13

¶14

CRL.P No. 3425 of 2017

¶15

SRI SRINIVAS M. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O. MURUGAN, R/AT NO.4, NANDARAM SINGH LANE, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 37.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

[BY SRI HARSHAVARDHAN G. REDDY, AND SRI K. NARAYANA, ADVOCATES FOR P.1, P.2. P.4 AND P.5 (ABSENT)]

¶18

AND:

¶19

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY COMMERCIAL STREET POLICE STATION, BANGALORE, BY SPP., HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶20

SMT. REKHA D/O. SUNDAR AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, NOW R/AT NO.13-1, OLD NO.2ND STREET, SHIVAN SHETTY GARDEN, BHARATHI NAGAR, SHIVAJINAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 042.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODA, HCGP FOR R.1; R.2: SERVICE OF NOTICE HELD SUFFICIENT V/O. DATED 25.03.2022)

¶23

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED AGAINST PETITIONERS HEREIN IN CR.NO.111/2016, REGISTERED BY THE COMMERCIAL STREET POLICE, PENDING ON THE FILE OF XLIII ADDL.C.M.M., BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 498(A) AND 420 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT, BE QUASHED AS THE PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED.

¶24

¶25

CRL.P No. 3425 of 2017

¶26

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners is absent. He has filed

¶29

a memo for retirement dated 25.03.2022.

¶30

The matter is of the year 2017. It appears that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.

¶31

SD/JUDGE

¶32

VMB

Sri. Madan M v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri. Madan M v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anuradha Jagadish Vs Soumya Makkam

Dr Madhu Sudan T Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ramesh @ Chandregowda Vs Smt Gayathri @ Lakshmi

Mr Bheemesh Gowda Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri. N Venugopala Murthy Vs State by East Zone Women Police Station

Sri Ramesh Babu O N Vs the State of Karnataka