Karnataka High Court
CRL.P/10067/2017 of SRI R GAJENDRA @ GAJA Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 28 December 2017
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10067 OF 2017 BETWEEN: SRI.R.GAJENDRA @ GAJA S/O RAJENDRA PRASAD AGE: 26 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.51 1ST MAIN, 4TH CROSS NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURUDATED THIS THE 28[TH|]DAY OF DECEMBER 2701/
BEFORE
THE HON’'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.K.SUDHINDRARAO
CRIMINAL PETLTION NOQ.1LQQ067 OF 2
BEIWEEN:
SRI.R.GAJENDRA @ GAJAS/O RAJENDRA PRASADAGE: 26 YEARSRESIDING AT NO.511[S ]MAIN, 4[TR]CROSSNEAR GANESHA TEMPLE|SOMESHWARANAGARAMAHALAKSHMI LAYOUTBENGALURU - 560 O86.
—. PETITIONER
(BY SRI.M.M.ABHIJITH, ADV.)
AND:
STATE OF KARNATAKA ©BY NANDINI LAYOUT POLICE STATIONBENGALURU|REPRESENTED BY STATE.PUBLIC PROSECUTORHIGH COURT OF KARNATAKABANGALORE —- 560 OO1
—_ RESPONDENT
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, ADV.)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 439 ofCr.P.C.,prayingCOenlargetnepetitionerOn|DallinCr.No.138/2016 of Nandini Layout police station, Bengaluru and.
in C.C.No.24153/2016 on the file of IIT Addl. C.M.M., Bengaluru.for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 148, 427, 302r/w 149 of IPC and Section 3(1) of Prevention of Damage toPublic Property Act, 1984.
This Petition coming on for Orders this day, the Courtmade the following:
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
The substance of the complaint is that on 31.7.2016.at about 11 p.m. when the complainant Dnanushree, nerhusband Vijay Kumar and her in laws were having dinner,at that time, one Raja @ Panparag Raja who was after thecomplainant earlier, along with Sathisn @ Mota and Tejas@ Teja were creating noise. The window glasses werebroken by pelting stones and the husband of thecomplainant wanted to see what was going on at that hourand was followed by the complainant who startedsearching for her husband who was not seen. Incidentally,she saw her husband in the pool of blood.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit.
that the case is registered against the petitioner purely on the basis of suspicion against realities.
3. Learned High Court Government Pleader wouldoppose the application.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the charge also has not been framed.
5. In the circumstances, I am of the view that it is|
not just and proper to exercise the discretion. However, the learned District Judge may consider the custody of the petitioner and dispose of the case expeditiously.
Hence, the petition is rejected.
RV
Sd/-|
JUDGE.