M/S Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2025WP/34779/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition (GM-Police) WP No. 34779 of 2025, Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru, decided 02.12.2025 by Justice Suraj Govindaraj. Petitioner M/s. Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd. sought certiorari to quash police notice dated 08.11.2025 in Crime No. 83/2025 of Viveknagar/Vivekanagar Police Station, Bengaluru (respondents: State of Karnataka through State Public Prosecutor and Sub Inspector of Police; AGA Smt. K.P. Yashodha; petitioner's advocate Sri. Tahir). Filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Disposed via withdrawal memo dated 02.12.2025 with undertaking to cooperate with investigation; petition dismissed as withdrawn; issue left undecided; no precedent cited; no monetary quantum.

What did the court decide?

Permission to withdraw the writ petition; no substantive relief granted. ¶¶32-33

M/S Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:50760 WP No. 34779 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 34779 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

M/S. ATTICA GOLD PVT. LTD., A COMPANYREGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFICE AT INDIAN EXPRESS, BALEKUNDRI CIRCLE BENGALURU - 560 052. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT. LEELAVATHI K W/O JAGADISH R AGE ABOUT 47 YEARS R/A NO. 11/4, SUVARNA BHAVAN QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 052.

¶9

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

(BY SRI. TAHIR, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIVEKNAGAR POLICE STATION REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICE OF THE ADVOCATE GENERAL HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶14

¶15

NC: 2025:KHC:50760 WP No. 34779 of 2025

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE VIVEKANAGAR POKICE STATION BENGALURU - 560 047

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SMT. K.P. YASHODHA, AGA)

¶20

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO 1. ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DATED 08.11.2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE IN CRIME NO.83/2025, PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-C AND ETC.,

¶21

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶24

a) Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction quashing the impugned notice dated 08.11.2025 issued by the Respondent Police in Crime No. 83/2025, produced at Annexure-C.

¶25

b) Pass any other order which this Hon'ble court deems fit by considering the facts of this court, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:50760 WP No. 34779 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

A memo dated 02.12.2025, has been filed signed by the

¶30

counsel for the petitioner, which reads as under:

¶31

"The undersigned counsel for the petitioner most respectfully submits that the petitioner seeks leave of this Hon'ble Court to withdraw the above writ petition as petitioner undertakes to withdraw the above writ petition as petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the investigation in accordance with law. It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the petitioner to withdraw the above writ petition, in the interest of justice."

¶32

Accepting the said memo and submission of the counsel

¶33

for the petitioner, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

¶34

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶35

rv List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

M/S Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Attica Gold Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagyashree D v Vs State of Karnataka

Suyog Hospital Vs Chief Secretary

Nandeesha. G Vs State of Karnataka

Sirimane Enclave Recreation Club Vs the State of Karnataka

The Merchants Club (Rgd) Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. M. Thyagaraj Vs the State of Karnataka