Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M.G. UMA, J
ASHOK REDDY S/O BHIM REDDY HUDE – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court evaluates if interference is justified. (Para 3) |
| 2. discharge requires sufficient prima facie evidence. (Para 4) |
| 3. serious allegations warrant legal proceedings. (Para 5 , 6) |
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M.G. UMA)
509 and 354 of India Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) as well.
3. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsels for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:
4. My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following:
5. The informant - CW1 lodged the first information with Basavakalyan Rural Police Station, which was registered in Crime No.89/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 509 and 354 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(w) and 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short ‘SC/ST(POA) Act’).
7. CW1 is the informant, who filed the first information making specific allegations against the accused. Column No.17 of the charge-sheet discloses that the petitioner shamelessly committed the offence under Sections 354 and 509 of IPC against CW1, who was working as Supervisor on contract basis in Girls Hostel. The all
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
