IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRL.P.NO.6975/2014 BETWEEN:
1. SRI M.M ANANDRAM AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS S/O LATE M L MANJUNATHASETTY R/AT ‘SHREE’, NO.15 PAMPAMAHAKAVI ROAD SHANKARAPURAM BANGALORE 560 004.
2. SRI M M SAMPATH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS S/O LATE M L MANJUNATHASETTY R/AT ‘PRAKASHA’, NO.77/19 RATHNAVILASA ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE 560 004.
3. SRI M LACHAIAH SETTY AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS S/O LATE M L MANJUNATHASETTY R/AT ‘SHARAN’, NO.16/2 M N KRISHNA RAO ROAD BASAVANAGUDI BANGALORE 560 004.
4. SRI M M PARTHASARATHI AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS S/O LATE M L MANJUNATHASETTY R/AT ‘PRASEDA’, NO.2 KARNIK ROAD VARDHAMANAIAH BLOCK SHANKARAPURAM BANGALORE-560 004.
5. SRI M M PANDURANGA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS S/O LATE M L MANJUNATHASETTY R/AT ‘SUMADEEPA’, NO.100 6TH MAIN, 40TH CROSS 5TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR BANGALORE 560041 (By Sri. DWARAKANATH H S, ADV. (ABSENT)) ... PETITIONERS AND 1. SRI PANINDRA KUMAR AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS S/O LATE ESHWARAPPA R/AT CHANNAPURA ROAD FORT CHIKMAGALUR -577101.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CPI, CITY CIRCLE CHIKMAGALUR REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA-560 001 ... RESPONDENTS (By Sri. VIJAYA KUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL. SPP FOR R2, SRI SHAMS AHMED PATHAN, ADV. FOR R1 (ABSENT) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 08-09-2014 PASSED BY THE CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, CHIKMAGALUR IN P.C.R.NO.15/2012 VIDE ANNEXURE-A, DIRECTING REGISTRATION OF CRIMINAL CASE AND ISSUING SUMMONS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR OFFENCES P.U.S 420 AND 406 OF IPC.
THIS CRL.P. COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Counsel for the petitioners and counsel for respondent No.1 are absent.
2. The records contain a memo dated 15.03.2016, along with copy of the order sheet in PCR No.15/2012, filed by petitioner No.3, which reads as under:
“The PCR filed by the Respondent No.1 has been dismissed as not pressed and a copy of the Order so passed is produced herewith.
In the circumstances, the present Criminal Petition has become infructuous and the same may be dismissed.”
3. In view of the said memo, petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/- JUDGE TL