IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J
C.T.Ravi S/o Thimmegowda – Appellant
Versus
State By Bagewadi P.S. – Respondent
ORDER :
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
The petitioner, a Member of Legislative Council of the State of Karnataka now stands before this Court seeking quashing of registration of crime, in Crime No.186 of 2024, which alleges offences penal under Sections 75 and 79 of the BNS 2023.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief, are as follows:-
The petitioner, a people’s representative, is said to be in public field for over 3 decades. He is presently a Member of Vidhana Parishad/Legislative Council. The 2nd respondent is the complainant, a woman, Member of the Legislative Assembly. The genesis of the imbroglio lies, in the tumultuous events that unfolded on 19-12-2024, in the Vidhana Parishad. It is the allegation of the 2nd respondent that on 19-12-2024 amidst disorderly adjournment of Legislative Council, the petitioner is alleged to have made utterances, that undermined the dignity of the Vidhana Parishad, and those utterances had outraged the modesty of the complainant. A complaint then comes to be registered on the same day before the jurisdictional Police at Belagavi for offences punishable under Sections 75 and 79 of the BharatiyaNyaya Sanhita (‘ BNS ’). The investigation is sought to be

SURENDRA MOHANTY v. NABAKRISHNA CHOUDHURY
TEJ KIRAN JAIN v. N.SANJIVA REDDY
A.K. SUBBIAH v. CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
P.V.NARASIMHA RAO v. STATE (CBI/SPE)
RUPAN DEOL BAJAJ v. KANWAR PAL SINGH GILL
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.