Judgments
Judgments
  1. Home
  2. /
  3. High Court Of Karnataka
  4. /
  5. 2019
  6. /
  7. January

Reyan Markose vs State Of Karnataka And Others

High Court Of Karnataka|13 March, 2019
|

JUDGMENT / ORDER

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1534 OF 2018 BETWEEN:
REYAN MARKOSE S/O REYAN AGED 62 YEARS NO.33/294, LALY DALE VETTUCAUD, KADAKAMPALLY VILLAGE TITANIUM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM KERALA STATE-695 021 ... PETITIONER (BY SMT. ANITHA JOSEPH, ADV.,) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SHIRA POLICE STATION TUMKUR DISTRICT KARNATAKA STATE-572 137 2. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE & INVESTIGATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT ANNEXE BUILDING-1 ROOM NO.40, CID CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD BENGALURU KARNATAKA STATE-560 001 3. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KARNATAKA STATE NO.2, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU KARNATAKA STATE-560 001 4. MR. RAVISHANKAR C R THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE & INVESTIGATION OFFICER OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT ANNEXE BUILDING-1 ROOM NO.40, CID, CARLTON HOUSE PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU KARNATAKA STATE-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI S.T. NAIK, HCGP.,) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH ANNEXURES-A, B AND C ORDERS OF ATTACHMENT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES WHICH WERE ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AS THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AND INVESTIGATION OFFICER, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE UNIT, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA STATE, U/S 102 OF CR.P.C. UNDER REF.NO.CRM(1)35/FIU/CID,2015 DATED 05.04.2016, TO THE OFFICES OF THE SUB REGISTRAR AT KARAKULAM, POTHENCODE AND MALAYINKEEZHU IN THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT, KERALA STATE ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R On account of non-compliance of office objections within the time allowed, the matter has been listed before the Court on more than three occasions and even the cost has been imposed, same has not been paid.
Even today, there is no representation on behalf of petitioner. Office objections have not been complied with till date, which would indicate that petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the petition. Hence, petition stands dismissed for default.
Sd/- JUDGE cp*
Disclaimer: Above Judgment displayed here are taken straight from the court; Vakilsearch has no ownership interest in, reservation over, or other connection to them.
Title

Reyan Markose vs State Of Karnataka And Others

Court

High Court Of Karnataka

JudgmentDate
13 March, 2019
Judges
  • Aravind Kumar