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.
Mr. Raju @ Maridasanayaka S/o Dasnayaka Aged about 44 years. Vs. Mrs.S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
ORDER1.Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn. Office is directed to return the original documents....
Shri. V.R.Manjunath S/O Late. V.S.Ramalinga Shetty Age: 52 Years. Vs. ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
ORDER1.Petitioner is seeking quashing of the proceedings in Crime No.343/2009 pending on the file of 2nd Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore. 2.Complainant one K.V.Vinay alleges that, the accused was forcing him to sign the document and he has threatened also. In this regard, complaint has been registered by the Siddapur police on 4.11.2009 for the offence punishable under Section 384 of IPC. As against the said proceedings, this petition has been filed for quashing. 3.Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, earlier to the complaint the police has called the petitioner and the matter was settled. In this regard, the learned counsel relies on Annexure TV.4 On perusal of the records it revealed that, the complaint was filed before the Commissioner of Police on 20.10.2009 and it was forwarded to the jurisdictional police. On the basis of which, notice was issued. When the matter was not settled, the police has registered the case. It is now submitted that, on investiga...
Sri.B.Krishna Bhat Aged About 81 Years. Vs. State of Karnataka Bv the ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
ORDER1.Petitioner has sought for quashing the proceedings in Crime No. 172/2010 registered by Basavanagudi Police, Bangalore for an offence punishable under Section 109 sub section (9) of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959 read with Section 420 of IPC.2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submit that, the complainant alleges that the petitioner has not cooperated with an enquiry under Section 64 of the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act ("Act' flor short)., as he has not furnished the information required, and noncompliance of the same amounts to an offence under Section 109(9) of the Act and the said offence is punishable with fine of Rs.3.000/-. it is a non-cognizable offence, as such. Police has no power to investigate the matter without the sanction/permission from the jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 155 sub-section (2) of Cr.P.C.In this regard, he relied on the complaint dated 11/13.5.2010 and pointed out that, there were several allegations made against the ...
M/S.Salarjumg Sugar Mills Ltd, Vs. Shri Sushil Morarka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-07-2010
ORDER1.Respondent No.1 is present before the Court, On 6.7,2010, an application is filed to recall the non-bailable warrant, in the application, it is stated that on the same day, affidavit with supporting documents is filed before this Court .In viwe of this development, the non-bailable warrant issued on 3,6.2010 is hereby recalled by allowing c.A.No.626/2010. List this matter on 21,7.2010 for the say of Official Liquidator,...
Sri.K.G.Srinivas Son of K.G.Girish Aged About 66 Years. Vs. State by S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
ORDER1.Office has raised objections as regard to filing of C.C. of the FIR and proceedings, typed copy of the complaint, index sheet and pagination, stamp to be affixed.2.This Court had granted time on 9.2.2010. Despite, the petitioner's counsel has not complied with the office objections,3.Petitioner has sought for quashing of the proceedings in Crime No. 107/2009 pending on the tile of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, for the offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC.4.Learned Government Pleader submits that, after investigation, charge sheet has been filed and the matter is said down for evidence.Considering the same, not a case for interference. Petition dismissed....
G.Sainath Shet, S/O Krishna Shet, Vs. Somanath Mesiha, S/O Laxman Mest ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
ORDER1.Petitioner who is accused in C.C.No.363/02 pending on the file of JMFC, Kudapur has called in question the order dated 18.12.02. Petitioner had filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. for summoning D.W.1 to produce specific documents namely, the loan ledger of 1997 reflecting the loan obtained by the accused on 20.1.97 and all connected papers and loan ledger of 1997 reflecting the loan obtained by the accused during January, February 1997 and all connected documents. On summoning, D.W.I appeared before the Court. However, he did not support the accused and was treated hostile. Accused was permitted to cross-examine him on limited aspect evidence. The learned Magistrate has permitted the complainant to mark those documents, as against which, this petition has been filed.3. It is not in dispute that application was filed under Section 91 of Cr.P.C. It is also not in dispute that the witness was summoned only for production of two documents. When the witness had not produ...
Sri. C.Laksminarayana, S/O Late K.M.ChannegowdA. Aged About 58 Years, ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
ORDER1.Petitioner is accused No.l in private complaint registration No.775/IO pending on the file of VIII Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore.2. Respondent No.l filed a private complaint for an offence punishable under Sections 419, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120B of IPC. Allegation is that the respondent is a purchaser of the property bearing old No. 141 and new No.5 of Gayathridevi Park Extn.. Vyalikaval, III Main Road, Bangalore measuring 60 East-West and 45' North-South bounded with boundaries specified therein, for a consideration of Rs.2 crores. He has obtained khata and also sanction plan, when he has tried to put up construction, at that stage, he came to know that this accused No.l has purchased the property showing the same number under a registered sale deed dated 26.3.07 and alleges that accused Nos.2 to 7 are not the owners of the property and that they have fabricated the documents. Learned Magistrate has referred the matter to the police under Section 156(3) ...
Sri Veerabhadriah N. S/O Sri Narasappa, Aged About 40 Years, Vs. State ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-06-2010
ORDER1.The accused in C.C. Nc.110/2010 pending on the file of the J.M.F.C., Chahakere has filed this petition to set aside the order of issuance of non biable warrant by the trial court.2.When the matter is taken up for hearing. learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has made available a copy of the order made in Crl. P. No. 1256/2010 dated 01.04.2010, wherein this Courthas made the following Order:-The present petition field under section 482 Cr.P.C, Is allowed. Impuged order dated 1.3.2010 passed in C.C. No.110/2010 by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and JMFC, Challakere, issuing NBW against the petitioner-accused is hereby set aside. If the warrant is issued against him pursuant to the said order, the learned Magistrate shall recall the same. The petitioner accused is directed to appear in the said case before the trial Court on 19.04.2G10 without fail.3. In view of the order made by this Court in Criminal Petition No.i256/20i.O dated 01.04.2010, this petition does not survi...
K. R. Krishna Murthy, S/O Ramaswamy. Vs. the State of Karnataka by Its ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-2010
ORDER1.The petitioner had issued a cheque in favour of 2nd respondent towards discharge of the hand loan borrowed from him. On presentation of the cheque by the second respondent, it was returned with an endorsement 'stop payment'. Hence, he field a private complaint in PCR No.560/99 against the petitioner before the Trial Court under Sec.200 of Cr.P.C. read with Sec. 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The trial Court alter taking cognizance of the offence had registered the complaint as C.C.No. 321/01 but it came to be dismissed for non prosecution.2.The second respondent had also lodged a complaint against the petitioner with the first respondent - Police, alleging that he being a Telephone Supervisor and Union Secretary for Mysore District, authorised to recommend sanction of telephone 0r Customer Service Centers by the department had collected money front him promising him he would arrange for a Service Center for him and after collecting money he cheated him without getting Servic...
Suit ShanthammA. Wife of M.R.Muriswaiey, Aged About 55 Yeas. Sri Natar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: Jul-04-2010
ORDER1.Petitioners are the accused in Cr.Ho.87/ 07 registered by the Varthur police, Bangalore, for offences punishable under Sections 468 and 470 r/w 34 of I.P.C.2.Complainant alleges that the petitioners-accused by forging the signature of the deceased M.R.Muniswamy, father of the complainant have created a win and based on which, they tried to claim the property.3.Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that, the suit was filed for partition and thereafter, another suit was filed for declaration, and in the said suits, issue as regards the will was also raised. As such, complaint could not have been entertained, as the matter is purely civil in nature.4.Learned HCGP submits that, the suit &r; declaring the title of the petitioners on the basis of the will has been dismissed on the ground that the will is not proved. 5.From averment in complaint, it is seen that the complainant alleges that the accused have forged the signature of the deceased, as there is serious allegations, ch...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- 7
- Next ›
- Last »