IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5143 OF 2012 BETWEEN:
1. SRI P JAYAMADHAVA S/O PRABHASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS TAHSILDAR, MULBAGAL MULBAGAL TALUK-563131.
2. SRI SRINIVASAIAH SHETTI S/O SUBBAIAH SETTY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS R R T SHIRASTEDAR TALUK OFFICE, MULABAGILU MULBAGAL TALUK-563131.
3. SRI VENKATESH S/O ASWATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS REVENUE INSPECTOR KASABA HOBLI MULBAGAL TALUK-563131.
4. SRI NAGARJ S/O PARTHAVA DIXIT AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RETIRED REVENUE SECRETARY SIDDAGHATTA PANCHAYATHI R/AT OPP TO ESWARA TEMPLE SOMESHWARA PALYA MULBAGAL TOWN-563131.
5. SRI SHIVAKUMAR S/O K VEEREGOWDA AGEDA BOUT 45 YEARS SURVEYOR, TALUK OFFICE MULBAGAL-563131.
6. SRI M SOMASHEKARAIAH S/O MANNAGAIAH AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS LICENSE HOLDER SURVEYOR TALUK OFFICE MULBAGAL-563131 ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI: RAMESH KUMAR V., ADVOCATE FOR SRI: P M NARAYANASWAMY, ADVOCATE) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MULBAGAL POLICE STATION MULBAGAL CIRCLE KOLAR 2. SRI V SHIVARAJ S/O LATE VENKATESHAPPA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS M HOSAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, MULBAGAL TALUK ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI: NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI:P N HEGDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN.) & JMFC COURT, MULBAGAL, KOLAR DIST., IN CRIME No.282/2012 IN PCR No.32/2012.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Even though a direction was issued to the petitioners to produce the certified copy of MR No.5/2009-10 dated 09.03.2010, petitioners have not produced the same.
3. The material allegation made against the petitioners is that accused Nos.1 to 6 in collusion with accused No.7, without any basis, got the name of accused No.7 mutated in the properties comprised in S.No.1/1 of M.Hosahalli Village, Mulbagal.
4. These allegations, prima facie, attract the ingredients alleged in the petition. Therefore, at this stage, this Court cannot interfere with the matter. As a result, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE rs