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

2003 Supreme(Kar) 626

K.RAMANNA
HANUMANTHAPPA – Appellant
Versus
S. B. MASTAMARADI – Respondent


Advocates:
F.V.PATIL, M.V.Hiremath

K. RAMANNA, J.

( 1 ) ALL these seven criminal revision petitions are filed by the respective revision petitioners under S. 397 Cr. P. C. against the orders dated 12-6-2001, 7-7-2001, 26-5-2001, 26-5-2001, 7-7-2001, 7-7-2001 and 5-7-2001 passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge (Jr. Dn.) and JMFC, Ranebenur in Private Complaint Nos. 25/95, 30/95, 31/95, 28/95, 27/95, 29/95 and 32/95, respectively, whereby the Court below returned the complaints on the ground that the respective complainants have not obtained the prior sanction as per the provisions of S. 197 of Cr. P. C. and S. 170 of the Karnataka Police Act to take cognizance of the case.

( 2 ) SINCE the respondent in all these cases are common and common question of fact and law are involved, all of them are clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

( 3 ) THE brief facts that are to be noted are as follows :- on 1-4-1995 at about 11. 20 p. m. when the respective petitioners were in their house, at Sunkalbidari village of Rane-bennur Taluk/the respondent accused took them forcibly by saying that he wants to take their statement and get medical treatment, even though the complainants were suffering with pa










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