Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Putteeregowda vs the State of Karnataka

Putteeregowda vs The State of Karnataka

Type Court Judgment Court Karnataka Orders Decided Jul 30, 2025
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1711308

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Karnataka Orders High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
CRL.P/6518/2022

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Putteeregowda

Respondent

The State of Karnataka

Excerpt

-1-in the high court of karnataka at bengalurudated this the 30th day of july, 2025 before the hon'ble ms. justice j.m.khazi criminal petition no. 6518 of 2022 (482(cr.pc) / 528(bnss)) between: putteeregowda s/o late veeregowda, aged about 58 years, no.121, 1st main road, sri krishna nagara, siddhartha nagar, mysuru-570029. …petitioner (by sri. patgar narendra hanumant, advocate-absent) and: digitally 1. the state of karnataka signed by rep. by station house officer, rekha r nazarbad police station, location: mysuru-570010. high court of karnataka 2. shekar v m a.p.c. no.306, pcr no.9, vehicle gunman, nazarbad p.s, mysuru-570010. …respondents (by sri.b.lakshman, advocate) this crl.p is filed u/s.482 cr.p.c by the advocate for the petitioner praying to quash the proceedings -2- in c.c.no.1188/2016 iii j.m.f.c., at mysuru the 1st respondent filed a final report before this honble court, the vide annexure-a,b,c,d,e,f,g respectively. this petition, coming on for orders, this day,order was made therein as under:coram: hon'ble ms. justice j.m.khazioral orderno representation for petitioner.2. no representation for petitioner even in the afternoon session.3. this matter is of the year 2022.4. vide order dated 21.07.2025, as a last chance, a week's time was granted to comply with the office objections, failing which necessary orders would be passed for dismissal of the petition.5. despite the same, office objections are not complied with. it appears petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. -3-6. hence, petition is dismissed for default. sd/- (j.m.khazi) judge rr list no.: 1 sl no.: 6

Full Judgment

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6518 OF 2022 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: PUTTEEREGOWDA S/O LATE VEEREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, NO.121, 1ST MAIN ROAD, SRI KRISHNA NAGARA, SIDDHARTHA NAGAR, MYSURU-570029. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PATGAR NARENDRA HANUMANT, ADVOCATE-ABSENT) AND: Digitally 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA signed by REP. BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER, REKHA R NAZARBAD POLICE STATION, Location: MYSURU-570010. High Court of Karnataka 2. SHEKAR V M A.P.C. NO.306, PCR NO.9, VEHICLE GUNMAN, NAZARBAD P.S, MYSURU-570010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B.LAKSHMAN, ADVOCATE) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS -2- IN C.C.NO.1188/2016 III J.M.F.C., AT MYSURU THE 1ST RESPONDENT FILED A FINAL REPORT BEFORE THIS HONBLE COURT, THE VIDE ANNEXURE-A,B,C,D,E,F,G RESPECTIVELY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

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

ORAL ORDER

No representation for petitioner.

2. No representation for petitioner even in the afternoon session.

3. This matter is of the year 2022.

4. Vide order dated 21.07.2025, as a last chance, a week's time was granted to comply with the office objections, failing which necessary orders would be passed for dismissal of the petition.

5. Despite the same, office objections are not complied with. It appears petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. -3-

6. Hence, petition is dismissed for default. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial