Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-20-2012
1. This petition is filed to quash the proceedings initiated in PCR No.27/2011. on the file of Special Judge for Prevention of Corruption Act, Bangalore City and quash the order dated 03.12.2011 referring the complaint under section 156(3) Cr.P.C, for investigation by Lokayukta Police. 2. I have heard Sri Hashmath Pasha, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri S.G.Rajendra Reddy learned counsel for I-respondent and II respondent Sri T.J.Abraham, Party-impression. 3. The relevant averments of complaint as they relate to petitioner are as follows: - (a) In the month of July 2006, one Sri Janardhana Reddy, MIX. said 10 have made allegation that the petitioner has collected bribe of Rs. 150 crores from the Miners and the same was published in "The Hindu" News Paper dated 15"July 2006. (b) The petitioner has approved the Mining Lease illegally in favour of M/s. Shree Sai Venkateshwara Minerals in respect of 550 acres of land in Jog. Thimmappagudi. Vhavihalli. NEB Range. Sandur Taluk. Bellarv Di...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-20-2012
1. The petitioner has sought for quashing the averments of PCR No.27/2011 as they relate to petitioner herein and setting aside the order dated 03.12.2011. passed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. in PCR No.27/2011. referring the complaint to Additional Director General of police. Lokayukta, for investigation and quashing first information report in Crime No.63/2011, registered by Lokayukta police as they relate to petitioner herein. 2. I have heard Sri Uday U.Lalit. learned senior counsel for petitioner. Sri S.G.Rajendra Reddy. learned counsel for I-respondent/Lokayukta police and II respondent/party-in- person Sri T.J.Abraham. 3. The brief facts necessary for decision of this petition are as follows:- A complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C. in PCR No.27/2011 was tiled in the court of learned Special Judge at Bangalore, against the petitioner amongst others, alleging offences punishable under sections 13(l)(d) 13(l)(e) & section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1988. offences punis...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-09-2012
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the impugned order passed by the Higher Police Chief Director and Karnataka Chief Examiner of the Jail in order dt.3.8.2006 vide Annex-B1 and order passed by the Karnataka State Governor and its Chief Secretary, under Administrative Dept. (Jail and Cinema) order dt.3.8.2006, and Govt. order dt.14.8.2006, vide Annex-B1 where in at serial No.89, the name of the 3rdrespondent Manjunath is found, in the interest of justice and equity.)1. The son of a victim of brutal murder, is crying for justice, and is knocking at the doors of this Court, challenging the State action, of granting pardon to the perpetuator of the said heinous crime who is roaming in the streets of his Village, and wants to know, “is it justice?”.2. The petitioner has preferred this Writ Petition challenging the order passed by the Higher Police Chief Director and Karnataka Chief Examiner of the Jail in...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-28-2012
1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, petitioner who is the sole accused in Crime No.547/ 2011 of Chitradurga Rural Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, has sought for relief of anticipatory bail apprehending his arrest in connection with, the said case.2. Accordingly to the case of the prosecution, Smt. Hanumakka wife of Mahesh, lodged a report on 09.12.2011 alleging that her daughter - Gangamma aged about 17 years, has committed suicide by consuming poison and for the said commission of suicide, the petitioner was responsible, as such he has abated the commission of suicide. On the basis of the said complaint, the case came to be registered and the investigation was taken up. On coming to know the case for non-bailable offence, the petitioner approached the Court of Sessions, Chitradurga in Criminal Miscellaneous No.739/2011 ay presenting petition under Section 438 of the Code of Cri...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jul-10-2012
(Prayer: This Criminal revision petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by the advocate for the petitioner, praying that this Honble Court may be pleased to set aside the order dated 20.4.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.) and Judicial Magistrate First Class, K.R. Nagar, In C.C.No.220/2003 and the order dated 19.2.2009 passed by the I Additional Sessions Judge, Mysore in Criminal Appeal No.80/2008.)1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.2. The petitioner was the accused before the Trial Court in a case for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act, for brevity). It was the case of the complainant that the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- on 15th November, 2002 and had promised to repay the amount on or before 30th December, 2002. In discharge of the loan, he had issued a cheque drawn on Navnagar Urban Co-operative Bank, Krishnarajanagar, Myso...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Jan-12-2012
(Prayer: This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India, praying to quash Ann-B, the Endorsement dt.29.6.11, issued by the R4 and etc.) 1. In this case, the petitioner has called in question the validity of the endorsement at Annexure-B dated 29.6.2011, whereby the Sub-Inspector of Police, Sanjayanagar police Station, Bangalore has directed the petitioner to file the complaint in the police station having territorial jurisdiction over the place of crime. 2. The petitioner contends that one N.J.Nagaraju S/o Jayaramaiah, residing at No.41, Telecom Employees Layout, Bhogadi, Mysore had agreed to sell immovable property bearing Sy.No.138/C measuring 1 acre 8 guntas situated at Kadugodi village, Channasandra Road, Bangalore in his favour as also in favour of Sukanya Murthy and her brother Sridhar and received a sum of Rs.2.00 crores from them towards the sale consideration. Since the price of the land has increased, he demanded additional amount for sale ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-29-2012
1. As these two petitions filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are arising out same Crime No. No.6/2012 of Siddapura Police Station, Bangalore City, they have been clubbed together and are being disposed of by this common order,2. The petitioner in Criminal Petition No. 1652/2012 has been arrayed as accused No.1 and the petitioners in Criminal Petition No. 1310/ 2012 have been arrayed as accused Nos,3 and 4 in Crime No 6/203 2 of Siddapura Police Station, Bangalore City, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 399 and 402 of the Indian Penal Code.3. These petitioners along with other accused alleged to have made preparations for committing dacoity and robbers' near Siddapura Kalyani, situated in 1 Block, Jayartagara, Bangalore. According to the case of the prosecution, at about 08:00 p.m. on 09.01.2012, the Police Inspector of Siddapura Police Station, Bangalore, received a credible information about five persons standing near Siddapura Kalyani in 4th...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Nov-29-2012
(Prayer: This writ petition is filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution of India praying to quash the order dated 7.07.12 passed by the judge of the XIII Addl. City Civil Judge, Mayo hall Banglore by its order dated 7.07.12 in OS No 27376/09 vide Annex-F And direct the learned judge to impund the joint development agreement dated 9.11.05 AW its amendments dated 23.05.98 and 21.12.2000 relied upon by the respondent.) 1. This writ petition is referred to the bench pursuant to an order dated 11.10.2012 passed by a learned single judge of this court. 2. The question that arose before the learned judge in the writ petition is in respect of “impounding an insufficiently stamped document”. According to the defendant, in view of Section 33 of the Karnataka stamp Act, 1957, the moment an insufficiently stamped document is produced before the Court, court has to impound the same. It was contended by the plaintiff that, the question of impounding of an insufficiently stamped d...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-13-2012
1. This is an Appeal filed by the accused under Section 374(2) r/w Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, through legal aid and assistance given by High Court Legal Services Committee, challenging the impugned judgment dated 4.11.2003 made in S C rl.No.228/2000 on the file of I Addl. Sessions judge at Tumkur, convicting the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of 2,000/-, in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the Appeal may be stated as under:P.W17/Ramesharv father of the deceased-child, lodged a complaint with Gubbi Police stating that he belong with his wife/P.W18-Hamsa, brother and children had camped in Nittur Village for the purpose of doing business in polishing of utensils and on 21.6.2000 at about 9.00 p m, he along with his family members, had slept in the courtyard of the house of ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Apr-19-2012
1. In this petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioners who have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.02/2012 of Tavarekere Police Station, registered for the offence punishable under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code and Rule 42 and 3(1) of Karnataka Miner Mineral Concession Rule 1994, have sought for the relief of anticipatory bail.2. At the time of hearing the petition, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that subsequent to filing of this petition, petitioner No,3 accused No.3 was arrested and when produced before die learned Magistrate, he has been released on bail. Therefore, this petition in so far as it relates to petitioner, does not survive for consideration. To this effect he has also filed a memo Memo is placed on record and in the light of the said demo, thin petition is considered only in respect of petitioner No8? 1 and 7.3. According to the prosecution, on the basis of the complaint lodged by Village Accou...
Tag this Judgment!