SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(Kar) 233

C. S. SATHYA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent


Advocates:
C.H.JADHAV, G.S.VISHVESHVARA, Samapt Anand Shetty

M. M. MIRDHE, J.

( 1 ) CRIMINAL Revision Petition No. 143/89 is filed by the petitioner who is an accused in C. C. No. 1597 of 1982 on the file of the Additional Munsif and J. M. F. C. , Udupi, D. K. Criminal Revision Petition No. 144/89 is filed by the petitioner who is an accused in C. C. No. 1442/82, on the file of the same JMFC. Both the cases are registered on the complaint of Respondent No. 2.

( 2 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Counsel for the Respondents.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT No. 2 has filed a complaint against the petitioners alleging that they have committed an offence punishable under Section 500 of I. P. C. , The petitioner filed applications under Section 177 read with Section 201 of Cr. P. C. , for their discharge. The learned Judge passed a common order in both the applications dismissing the said applications. As both these Criminal revision petitions directed against the common order passed in both the Criminal Cases by the learned J. M. F. C. , I have heard both these cases together and I am passing a common order in them.

( 4 ) I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Government Pleader for Respondent No. 1 and the le


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top