Karnataka Court July 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.
Sri M. P. Vishakantegowda S/O. M. K. Nanjegowda @ Puttappa Aged About ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-2010
ORDER1.The learned Counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo seeking leave of the court to withdraw the writ petition.2. Memo is ordered accordingly. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn....
Sri.Chandrashekar Son of Sannaiah Aged About 52 Years. Vs. the State o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-2010
ORDER1.Petitioner is accused No.2 in Crime No.246/2004 registered on 12.7.2004 by H.A.L. police. Bangalore City, for the offence punishable under Sections 3, & and 6 of the Prize Chit *t Money CIR Schemes (Banning) Act, 1978 r/w Section 34 o" the IPC.2.The allegation against the petitioner is that, the petitioner being the husband of one Vijayalakshmi who induced the depositors to deposit the money by promising 1 : 10 times money on their deposit, collected huge amount from several depositors and cheated the public. In the statement of the depositors, they have revealed that, Scheme was run by Vijayalakshmi, her husband, petitioner herein and her brothers accused No.3 and accused No.4. All the four members were running the scheme in which the deposits were collected. The material collected by the police clearly shows prima facie allegation against the petitioner. Not a case for interference.Petition dismissed....
Mr.Soofi S/O Late Mohammad Aged About 42 Years. Vs. the State of Kamat ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-2010
ORDER1.Petitioner has called in question the proceedings in Crime No.23/2010 registered by Puttur Rural police on 2.3.2010 for the offence punishable under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the allegation against the petitioner is that, he was found in possession of 140 liters of Diesel and on this ground a complaint has been registered for violation of Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. He submitted that, ^o initiate criminal proceedings for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, it should be by a person not less than the Taluka Executive Magistrate and the complaint is made by the Sub-Inspector of police. He further submitted that, under the provisions of the Petrol Act, storing of petroleum product of class (b) is up to 2000 liters is permissible, whereas in case of class (c) up to 4500 liters at any place. Diesel being a class (c) petrol and storage is only 140 lite...
Sri.Devsingh Naik S/O Thavarya Naik Age: 54 Yeas. Vs. Smt.Kamala Bai W ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-12-2010
ORDER1.Petitioner who is respondent in C.Misc.No.627/2008 (cld No.C.Misc.28/2008). has filed this petition seeking transfer of the said petition from the JMFC-Il Court. Mysore to C.M.M. Court, Bangalore.2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the respondent has filed G.3.No. 138/2008 before the Family Court, Bangalore, for maintenance of Rs. 15,000/- per month and she had filed a petition seeking transfer of the said suit to Mysore In Civil Petition No.37/2009 and the said Civil Petition has been dismissed by this Court observing that, the respondent has been residing at Bangalore and no purpose would be served in transferring the same.3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submits that, the address of the house shown in earlier proceedings does not belong to the respondent. Temporarily she was staying there, now she is staying in Mysore. Mysore is the place of the parents and further submits that, she being the permanent resident of Mysore, she cannot be made to ru...
Ajjamada Suresh Poonacha, S/O Late Muthanna, Aged About 35. Vs. State ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
ORDER1.Petitioner has called in question the proceedings in PCR No I 13/09.2. Respondent No.2 has tiled a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C, interalia alleging that this petitioner switch key of the car, mobile phone, documents and other articles. She has made serious allegations against this petitioner.3.The learned Magistrate, looking into the nature of the offence, found it necessary that the matter requires investigation and accordingly, by the impugned order, has referred the matter to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. At this stage, petitioner has filed this petition. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter should have been referred to the jurisdictional police i.e., Srimangala police and not C.P.J. Kutta police. 5.If the matter has been referred to the wrong police station, the learned Magistrate would take appropriate steps to get it investigated by the jurisdictional police. No grounds to interfere. Hence, Petition i...
Sri.C.R.Chandran, Aged About 45 Years, Vs. M/S. Adarsha Educational an ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
ORDER1.This petition is filed against the order made by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C.2. A private complaint has been filed by respondent No.1 under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. against 17 accused, interalia alleging offences punishable under section 420,468,471 120(B) r/w section 34 of IPC3.Petitioner is accused No.5. At paragraph (8 of the complaint the complainant alleges that accused No.5 aided, abetted and conspired with accused Nos. 1 to 4. Considering the allegations, the matter has been referred to police investigation and it is yet to be investigated. At this stage, I do not find any justification to interfere with the proceedings.4.Accordingly, petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to seek appropriate orders at the appropriate stage....
Sri. Dr.T.V.Sreenivas S/O T.Venkatanarasaiah Aged 56 Years, Vs. Smt.S. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
ORDER1.Petitioner has sought for quashing of the proceedings in Crl.Misc.No.4/2010 pending on the file of the JMFC, Mysore and order dated 12.3.2010.2.Respondent is wife of the petitioner. She has filed a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act") interalia alleging the domestic violence and seeking relief of monetary benefit, protection and other reliefs.3.The learned Magistrate considering the nature of allegation in the application has ordered issue of summons and has also passed the order for monetary benefit to the respondent. At this stage, this petition has been filed for quashing of the entire proceedings.4.Sri Gunjal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction toentertain an application under Section 12 of the Act. on the ground that, the said application is not accompanied by the report of the Protection Officer. If is mandatory under Se...
Sri.D.Babu, Major in Age, S/O Late Das, Vs. Mrs.Princes Franklyn, W/O ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-09-2010
ORDER1.Office has raised objection on 7.4.10. This Court on 8.4.10, 19.4.10,21.4.10 and 25.5.10 had granted time on each occasion to comply with the objection. So far no needful is done.2. It appears petitioner has no interest in the matter. Hence, petition is dismissed....
Shanmugam M.E., S/O M.Ethlranjan, 41 Years. Vs. the State of Karnataka ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
ORDER1.Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that after filing of the charge sheet, the teamed Magistrate has used the printed form and has filled up with blanks for taking the cognizance. This Court has taken a view that the Magistrate before taking cognizance for the offence, his application of mind is necessary.2.Cognizance of the offence as stipulated under Section 190 of the Cr.P.C, is required that the set of facts alleged -n the complaint or produced by the police in the charge sheet must show the offence. While taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate is required atleast to notice the said facts and if he finds the allegations makes out an offence or offences, he may proceed to take cognizance.3.However, in this case, printed form is used for the purpose of taking cognizance by filling the blanks in the form, which is not contemplated with either under Section 190 Cr.P.C, nor in the procedure. Most improper procedure is adopted by the learned Magistrate. Hence, the or...
Mrs. Kavitha Rao W/O Mr.Jayendra Ganguli Aged About 30 Years, Vs. Mr.S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-08-2010
ORDER1.Petitioner is seeking setting aside the order dated 24.1 1.2009 on the file of II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, in C.C.No.7279/2003.2. Petitioner complainant filed two applications, one under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for recalling PW2 and another application under Section 242 of Cr.P.C. for production of documents. Trial Court observed that, the prosecution had enough opportunity to lead evidence and it had led the evidence and at the fag end the complainant has filed the applications, further there is a direction by the High Court for disposal of the case at the earliest.3. As against the order passed by the trial Court, a revision petition was filed under Section 397 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-XV in Criminal Revision Petition No.83/2010. The Criminal Revision Petition was allowed by order dated 6.4.2010 interalia permitting the petitioner to recall PW2 and also produce the document. However, the said order was called in quest...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »