SMT SHIVAMMA, W/O PURUSHOTTHAMA K, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, R/AT D.NO.3-41, LEKKESIRI MAJALU HOUSE, YEDAMANGALA VILLAGE AND POST, SULYA TALUK, D.K-574 221.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SACHIN B S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MANGALORE- 575 001.

¶14

RAJESH RAI,

¶15

S/O DAMODHARA RAI, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT ASHIRVADH NIVASA, KINYALAGUTTHU, YEDAMANGALA VILLAGE AND POST, SULYA TALUK, D.K- 574 221.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. B B PATIL., SPL.PP FOR R1 RESPONDENT No.2 SERVED)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:35658 WP No. 23048 of 2022

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.CASE NO.155 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DK, MANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 403, 406 AND 109 OF IPC AS PER ANNEXURE-A IN SO FA AS PETITIONER CONCERN.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned SPP for respondent No.1/State are present.

¶26

It is brought to the notice of the Court that already substantial portion of the evidence is recorded and the recording of evidence of CW-28 who is the investigating officer is going on. The offences alleged against the accused persons including the petitioner who is accused No.1 are punishable under Sections 13(1)(c) and

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:35658 WP No. 23048 of 2022

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, and Sections 109,

¶31

403, 406, 465, 466, 477-A r/w 35 and 37 of IPC.

¶32

Having regard to the above facts, question of considering this petition on merits would not arise, especially, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kapil Gupta V/s State (NCT of Delhi) and Another reported in (2022) 15 SCC 44 .

¶33

4. In view of the same, the petition is dismissed .

¶34

However, the petitioner/accused No.1 is at liberty to urge any defence available to her on merits.

¶35

Sd/(J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE

¶36

KBM

¶37

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

Smt Shivamma v. the Karnataka Lokayuktha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Shivamma v. the Karnataka Lokayuktha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Asha Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka

Prathap Simha M R Vs the State of Karnataka

Rafeek @ Shamshir Khan, Vs the State of Karnataka

Shivakumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. M Goutham Chand Vs State of Karnataka

Chandrappa H .Y Vs the State of Karnataka