Karnataka Court November 2010 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
The State of KarnatakA. Vs. Thimmaiah, S/O. Late Dasse GowdA. and ors.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
1. This appeal by the State is directed against the judgment and order dated 28.12.2004 passed by the Presiding Officer. Fast Track Court - II, Bangalore Rural District in S.C.No.251/2000 acquitting the accused- Respondent Nos.l to 3 of the charges levelled against them for the offenses punishable U/Ss.498(A). 304(B) and 306 r/w Section 34 of IPC.2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is as under: -Deceased - Renukamma, daughter of PW13 -Hanumantharayappa and PW14 - Smt Cowramma resident of Tavarekere. Bangalore Rural Distriet, was married to Govindaraju. son of Accused 1 and 2 and elder brother of Accused No.3. Their marriage was solemnized on 28.11.199S. Prior to the marriage, during negotiation, the accused persons demanded cash of Rs. 1.00.000/ . gold ornaments and also one hero honda motor cycle as dowiy and wanted the parents of the bride to bear the entire marriage expenses. On mutual negotiation, father of the bride - PWI3 agreed to pay 20 soverign golden ornaments. Rs.2...
Murthy S/O Vedamuthu and ors. Vs. State by Byappanahally P.S.
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
ORDER1. The petitioners are arrayed as accused 2 & 3 in Crime No.277/2010, registered for offences punishable under sections 143, 145, 147, 148, 307 r/w 149 IPC.2. I have heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned HCGP for State.3. As per fir.-t information and statement of injured, petitioners along with other accused due to previous enmity, assaulted the injured with a chopper, a long and a knife. The injury certificate would repeal a cut lacerated injury on parietal region, a cut lacerated injury on left shoulder and left index finger of the injured. Injury No. 1 was caused by petitioner No 1 by assaulting the injured with a long. The injuries caused by petitioner No.2 were on non-vital parts. Therefore, there is prima facie case against petitioner No.l. There is no prima facie case against petitioner No.2.4. In the result. I pass the following: -ORDERThe petition is accepted in part. The petition as i+ relates to petitioner No. 1 is dismissed. The petition as it relates to p...
M. Shalima, Aged About 20 Years. Vs. the Principal, Jnana Vikas Instit ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
1. The petitioner had joined Jnana Vikasa Institute of Technology (for short 'the college'), Bidadi, Ramanagara Taluk & District for the study of B.E. (Computer Science and Engineering) course for the academic year 2007-08. She appeared for the 1st semester examination in the month of January, 2008. In the said examination, she has failed in one subject, namely, 'Engineering Chemistry' and has passed in the other seven subjects. After completion of the 2nd semester, she has appeared for the 2 semester examination in July, 2008. She has also appeared for the examination in the failed subject of the 1st semester. In the 2nd semester examination, she has failed in one subject, namely, 'Basic Electrical Engineering' and has passed in the other seven subjects. She has also passed in the failed subject of the 1st semester. After completion of the 3rd semester, she has appeared for the 3rd semester examination in January, 2009. In the said examination, she has failed in two subjects, namely, ...
S.G.Siddartha S/O.Sri S.G.SomashekarappA. Vs. K.S.Murahari S/O.Sri Sak ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
ORDER J.S.KHEHAR, C.J. (Oral):1. In compliance with the directions issued by this Court, the accused-respondent entered appearance in the morning session. He gave an undertaking to this Court that he would hand over vacant possession to the complainant -petitioner during the course of the day.2. On his a foretasted undertaking, the matter was deferred to be taken up in the post-lunch session. It was again taken up at 4 p.m. At this juncture, the accused-respondent informs us. That he has already handed over possession to the complainant-petitioner. The complainant-petitioner acknowledges, the factual position, namely, that vacant possession has been handed over to the complainant-petitioner by the accused respondent.3. In view of the above, we are satisfied, that, the order passed by this Court on 15.9.2009 while disposing of the Regular Second Appeal No.885/07 has since been complied with. Thus viewed, nothing survives for further consideration in so far as the instant petition is con...
Srinivasa S/O Narayanaswamy Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner is alleged to have committed rape on the victim when she was alone in the house during the afternoon of 10.4.2010. The victim is handicapped persons as per the disability certificate issued by the Government of Karnataka. She does not have control over her lower limbs. She belongs to Schedule Tribe. These facts are narrated in the first information given by the victim on 12,4.2010.2. The learned counsel for petitioner would submit that there are discrepancies relating to time of incident mentioned in the first information, which gives an impression that the victim was a consenting party. The medical examination does not reveal that the victim was subjected to rape.3. The learned Government Advocate would oppose the bail application.4. At this stage, it cannot be disputed that the victim is physically disabled person belonging to Schedule Tribe. It is not the case of the petitioner that the victim had any vengeance against the petitioner to falsely foist a case of...
Sridhara S/O Jogappa Vs. State of Karnataka and Smt Lalitha @ Shruth1 ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner and his counsel are present Respondent No.2 is also present.Sri.H.R Sanjeevegowda, learned counsel, files power on behalf of respondent No.2 He also files affidavit of the complainant-respcnoent No.2.2. The affidavit of respondent No.2 reads as under:"I, Smt.Lalitha @ Shruthi W/o J Sridhara, Aged about 26 years, residing at No.47, Main, 5th Cross, Saraswatipuram, Mysore, today at Bangalore, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows: 1. I state that, 1 am the 2nd respondent in the above case and I am well conversant with the facts deposing here under. 2. I further state that, I have filed the case against the petitioner before the 1st respondent police for the offence punishable under Section 498A of IPC R/w.3 and 4 of D.P.Act.3. I further state that, after that due to the intervention of the elders and friends the matter has been amicably settled out of the Court, and myself and the petitioner is residing together by leaving the all the allegations. ...
Sri. M. Venkatesh S/O. Muniyappa and ors Vs. the State of Karnataka an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
ORDER1. Learned HCGP is directed to take notice for the 1st respondent. Sri. N.K. Gupta, learned Counsel, is directed to take notice for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 2. The 1st petitioner contends that he is the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 10/2 measuring 2 acres 7 guntas situated at Chandapura Village, Atttbele Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore District. It is the case of the 2nd petitioner that he is the owner of the land bearing Sy. No. 152/4 measuring 20 guntas situated in the same village. The 4th respondent proposed to draw 220 KV transmission line via Dommasandra Chanadapura to Attibele Industrial area. For the said purpose, respondent No.4 proposed to erect a tower and draw the transmission line over the lands of the petitioners as well. The petitioners filed their objections to the said proposal as per Annexure-C. Since the said representation has not been considered, the petitioners have tiled tills writ petition for a mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider the same in...
Sri Shivanna and Smt Neelamma Vs. the State of Kamataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
ORDER1. The petitioners ave arrayed as accused Nos.2 and 3 in Crime No.:1 10/2010 registered for offences punishable under Sections 376, *20 and 313 r/w. 34 of IPC by Madhugiri police.2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioners and learned Government Pleader for the State.3. The petitioners are the parents of first accused, who is alleged to have committed rape on victim by falsely holding over promises to marry her. In the statement of victim, it is stated that when first accused took her to the house of petitioner, his parents' had told victim that they have a daughter of marriageable age and they would perform the marriage of first accused Thereafter performing the marriage of their daughter. In the meanwhile, first accused appears to have induced and committed rape on victim. As per the statement of victim, first accused induced and committed rape on her, as they are yet to be married. Thereafter, victim conceived and at the instance of first accused she underwent abortion. Thereafter...
TanujA. B.i I. D/O. Late Basavaraj Hiremath Vs. Rajiv Gandhi Universit ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition for a mandamus directing the respondent-University to consider the representation filed by the petitioner for extension of the benefit of Internal Assessment. Carry-over System and Grade Marks for the students of B.H.M.S. Course who have joined the course during the years 2000. 2001 and 2002.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner points out thai representation filed as per Annexure-C has not been considered by the lsl respondent-University.3. Sri. N.K. Ramesh. Learned Couo.sel for the 1st respondent-University submits that the respondent- University will consider the said representation and pass appropriate orders thereon.4. Recording the said submission of the learned Counsel for the respondent-University, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the 1st respondent-University to consider the representation at Annexure-C in accordance with law within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No ...
Pradeepa S/O.Late Nanjegowda Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Nov-18-2010
ORDER1. The petitioner is the husband of deceased. He is arrayed as accused No.l in Crime No.58/2009 registered for offences punishable under sections 493-A. 304-B, 302 r/w 34 of IPC and Sections 3 a*id 4 of D.P.Act by Dudda police, Hassan District.2. Heard learned Counsel for petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the State and I have been taken through investigation records.3. The investigation records would reveal that marriage of petitioner and deceased was performed on 11.3.2009. The wife met with homicidal death. On 18.6,2009, the dead body was found in a well near the village of petitioner. The Post Mortem Examination Report would reveal that death was due to homicidal sintering. It is obvious that deceased was done to death and thereafter dead body was thrown into the well. The investigation records would reveal that deceased was living in the house of petitioner. The deceased was last seen alive in the company of petitioner. The petitioner has not offered any explanatio...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- Next ›
- Last »