Karnataka Court May 2011 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.Yogesh So. B. Ashok Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. The petitioner is accused No.5 in Crime No.270/2010 along with five others which is registered for the offence punishable under Sections 348, 365, 452, 342. and 109 of IPC. 2. The allegation is that on 18.2.2010 at about 10.30.a.m. one loohie Rama Reddy, PSI of Chinthamani registered a Suo motu report. In the report, he mentioned that he and ASI Peedanarashimaiu and one PC 256 namely Knshnappa were on night rounds at 12.50 a.m., they saw silver colour car near Gajanna Circle, Chinthamani and on checking, they found five persons (not including the petitioner), along with them, there was one Chandrashekar. On questioning the occupants of the car, it revealed that Chandrashekar was involved in a criminal case and they were taking him to Bharathmagar police station. The complainant told them that it was illegal for them to take a person in custody by themselves. He offered to take Chandrashekar to the police station. Accordingly, accused Nos.1 to 5 left the place. Police Sub Inspector L...
Lokesh Kumar at Lokesh So. Sanjeeva Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-03-2011
ORDER 1. Petitioner who is accused No.6 facing charge for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 332,. 399, 402, 506-B r/w 120-B of IPC in Cr.No.85/2011 is in judicial custody. 2. The allegation is, on 26.03.2011 at 2 p.m., when the complainant N.H.Siddappa. PSI was on official duty, he received an information that some persons were engaged in preparation to commit dacoity. He rushed to MICO factory at Naganathapura and found some persons. When he rushed towards them, they tried to escape, while one pointed a pistol towards the complainant and his staff. However, the complainant ran in pursuit and apprehended two persons i.e., Ganesha @ Bangera and Lokesh Kumar- the petitioner herein. The third one managed to escape. From their possession, a mobile and Rs.3,000/- was recovered. On this allegation, the petitioner also came to be arrested. It is stated that the co-accused Ganesha has been admitted to bail by the trial court itself while the petitioner was denied the benefit. 3. The ...
Smt. Vanitha Wo Venkataramappa Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. Petitioner is accused No.1. The Station House Officer, Kolar Rural Police Station is seeking to arrest her during investigation in Crime No.68/2011 which is for offence punishable under Sections 408, 409, 417, 418, 419, 420, 465, 466, 468 and 471 read with 149 of IPC. 2. The petitioner is not yet been arrested. Apprehending a»rest, she seeks direction. 3. From the case papers it is noticed that one V. Naravanappa lodged a complaint at the respondent police station alleging that he is a job card holder of Thondala Village, petitioner is a President of the Grama Panchayat while accused Nos.2 to 8 are the members occupying different positions. They all conspired to fabricate documents so as to enable withdrawal of money, thereby to make unlawful gain and cheat the State exchequer. On this basis, FIR was registered in Crime No.68/2011 and Investigating Officer is seized of the matter. During investigation, he is seeking to arrest them, 4. The main allegation is that the complainan...
Sri. J.Lokesh So. Janardhan Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. The petitioner is in judicial custody after arrest, during investigation In Crime No.44/2011 for the offence punishable under Section 366(A) and 376 of IPC on the basis of the report submitted by one Vasanth, uncle of a minor girl by name. Ba-by Sha-ilh. Ms attempt before the jurisdictional court failed as. tfca'-Investigating Officer has raised charge for the-offence punishable under Section 2. The State has been -given opportunity to file counter, which is not done. But the seamed Government Pleader Sri,Raja Subramanya Bhat has, on the basis of the material, opposed ball, S, Heard. 4. From the report. It is noticed that the victim is said to be under 18 years and a student of II PUC in Fathima College. It is alleged that on 24.2,2011 at about 11.30 a.m. she left the house to attend the college bur did not return and attempts to trace her were futile. Later, the complainant, and her parents, on suspicion that the petitioner may be involved in her disappearance, contacted one....
ManjunathA.B.R. So. Ramaiah Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-03-2011
ORDER 1. Petitioners are faced with the charge punishable for offences punishable under Sections 109 S 307 r/w 34 of IPC. On the basis of information given by one Shekar in which, he alleged that on 06.03.2011, one Manjunath and his wife Rudramma guarre'ed with him. A report was lodged at the police station. Thereafter, the panchayath was arranged, but the accused did not attend the said panchanvath. On 07.03.2011 at about 5 p.m., again Rudramma and one Puttathayamma quarreled with the complainant and instigated the petitioners to assault. When the son of the complainant was moving to go to the poiire station riding his bike bearing registration No.KA-02, HG-2932 to lodge the complaint, the petitioners allegedly quarreled with the complainant's son and Manjunath and Basavaraju are alleged to have assaulted the complainant, causing injuries. He suffered injury to the head arid other parts and was admitted to the hospital. 2. Learned Counsel submits that the complaint is mischievous, as ...
Sri. Manjunath So. Late Muniyappa Vs. State by Thalagattapura Police S ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. Petitioner who is accused Mo .6 seeks tell' while in judicial custody. He is facing charge for the offence, punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 114 307, 120(8), read with 149 of IPC in a matter relating to assautt on one jayaram, S/o late Venkatappa. on 22,12,2007. 2. In the said incident,, it is alleged at 3 a.m. when Jayaram had taken his friend Kuruda Manja on pulsar motor dike to purchase plywood sheets at Kagallpura, petlGphers friends Kaleel and another waylaid them and backed with objects like sword, chopper, etc causing injuries in a homicidal attempt. After investigation, ail five accused were found to be involved in the act of violence. Petitioner's name was not mentioned at that moment, but later he was arraigned on the basis that he is the main conspirator. However, he was absconding and could not be arrested. The Judicial Magistrate split the charge against him but committed the co-accused Nos.1 to 5 to trial In S.C.No»224/2010, They were, acquitted for ...
Smt. Saraswathamma W/O. Narasimha Murthy Vs. State by Subramanyanagar ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. The petitioner is the first accused its Crime No.260/2009 facing charge for offences punishable under Sections 406, 418. 419, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC on the basis of the report submitted by one Purushotham alleging that he had purchased the property from one Krishna Kumar, who in turn had purchased the same from the petitioner herein to alleged that the petitioner had forged documents to mislead as if she had acquired title, but it was not so. Several allegations are made by him against her in private complaint submitted by him under Section 200 Cr.P.C. 2. Based on the reference, the Investigating Officer has conducted investigation in FIR No.260/2009. The copy of the FIR filed reveals that the complainant has pointed out several instances to show that the petitioner had indulged in forgery, misrepresentation and misuse of trust. The case is under investigation. But it could be noticed that to sustain charge against petitioner and other accused, the complainant is relying on documen...
K Ranganathaiah S/O Sri Kemparangaiah Vs. the State of Karnataka and o ...
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-03-2011
ORDER 1. The order dated 17.2,2011 passed in Application No.526/11 by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal is challenged in this writ petition. By the said order, the tribunal has while granting the interim order of 'stay- of transfer of the applicant/ writ petitioner herein to. Ramanagaram made it clear that the interim order of stay would be in force only till 31.3,2011 arid, that the same was not liable to be extended. 2. It k apparent that the -tribunal could not dispose of the main matter before 31.3.2011 and' its Applicant has not also got the interim order, extended by moving the tribunal before 31.3.2010 3. The- submission., of the learned, counsel for the petitioner -as that the tribunal has heard the matter on 30.3.2011 and reserved the same for orders. The grievance of the petitioner is that -as the tribunal is required to pronounce the order on merits., the interim order ought to have been continued till the disposal of the case. 4. We have heard the learned counsel, for t...
Abdul Razak Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-03-2011
ORDER 1. Petitioner is accused No.2 in judicial custody aurmg investigation in Cr.No.53/11 for offences pumshable untie1-Sections 399 and 402 of IPC. 2. Heard. 3. On a suo-motto complaint of the police officer, a case came to be registered on the allegation that on 24.03.2011 at about 10.30 p.m., five persons were waiting in the car bearing No.KA-05 P 5394 armed with deadly weapons at a place called Myra at Kepu village, Bantwal taluk. Their intention was to commit dacoity. The officials of Vitla police station apprehended them and seized several objects from their possession. From the petitioner, a stick is recovered. They are alleged to be armed to commit dacoity. This is the charge. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner points out to the face that recovery from the petitioner is only a stick. Abdul Razak and one more person Abubackar are said to be in the car. In all five are said to be involved, but the police have apprehended only three persons, while two escaped. 5. I am inclined...
Ranganatha G.S. So.Subbanna Vs. State of Karnataka
Court: Karnataka
Decided on: May-03-2011
1. The petitioner is accused No.1 facing charges along with 26 others for offences punishable under Sections' 143, 147, 148 and 302 r/w. 149 of IPC and u/S.3' Claus Clause (xi) of SC/ST (PDA) Act. 2. From the narration in 'the-, complaint which became the quarry money to arrest the petitioner and others, if is noticed that a woman by name Honnamma was done to death after lynching' her and smashing her head with a stone. While revealing what transpired resulting in death of Honnamma, the complaints has named several accused and described their overt act3. According to her, the petitioner and other accused had indulged in violence. The overt acts attributed by her to the petitioner and other accused show that the initiation of violence itself was by the petitioner. He slapped her and she fell down which facilitated the other accused to kick her and cause pain. While 7 to 8 persons intervened to save her the petitioner and accused. Nos.5, 6 and 8 armed with stones, .charged at .her despit...
- ‹ Prev
- 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 14
- Next ›
- Last »