✦ Karnataka High Court

ADARSH v. STATE BY JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU

Case at a glance

Outcome

Dismissed

Hence, the petition is dismissed for non-compliance of office

Key paragraphs

  • Para 33. Inspite of that, there is non-compliance of office objections nor there is any representation. It appears that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed for non-compliance of office objections. GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 Sd/-…

Judgment

(BY SRI K. SREEDHAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

#2. STATE BY JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REP. BY CIRCLE INSPECTOR, JAYANAGAR - 560 011. PAVAN KUMAR N.N., S/O NAGESH N.F., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 71 RAMANILAYA, 2ND MAIN, SHREYAS COLONY, J.P NAGAR, 7TH PHASE, BANGALORE - 78. (BY SMT. ASMA KOUSER, ADDL. SPP) …PETITIONERS …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by NANDINI R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC:34340 CRL.P No. 8953 of 2021 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.169/2021 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE STATION, BANGALORE DATED THE PETITIONERS FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 409,420,418,120B R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.21 OF BUDS ORDNANCE.

09.08.2021 AGAINST THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioners is absent. No representation.

#2. The order sheet dated 20.06.2024 reads as under: "Two weeks time is granted to comply with the office objections, failing which, the petition shall stand dismissed."

#3. Inspite of that, there is non-compliance of office objections nor there is any representation. It appears that the petitioners are not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed for non-compliance of office objections. GRD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 29 Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE

Questions this judgment answers

What did the Court decide in this case?

The Court recorded the following disposition: Hence, the petition is dismissed for non-compliance of office

Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s. 482; Indian Penal Code, 1860.

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No treatment data yet for this judgment in the Courts & Cases corpus.

Absence of data is not a statement about the judgment’s standing — the corpus covers only judgments we index and link with cited evidence.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Karnataka High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. Criminal Petition No. 8953 of 2021). ← Search more judgments