- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:1218 WP No. 17075 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 17075 OF 2017 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SMT. BHAVANI D/O SRI.H.K.BASAVARAJU, W/O SATHISH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT HANASE, YESALURU HOBLI, SAKLESHPUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. CHANDANA.S., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. A.V.NISHANTH., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. KARNATAKA STATE CHILD RIGHTS PROTECTION COMMISSION, HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: 4TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEAR HUDSON CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, RANI CHENNAMMA CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 002. 2. DR.K.SHIVARAM AGED MAJOR, S/O NOT KNOWN, R/AT NO.20, "SAPTHAGIRI", 1ST B CROSS, 33RD MAIN, 7TH BLOCK, BANAGIRINAGAR, Digitally signed by THEJASKUMAR N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:1218 WP No. 17075 of 2017 BANASHANKARI 3RD STAGE, BENGALURU-560 085. 3. DR.KRIPA ALVA CHAIRPERSON, KARNATAKA STATE CHILD RIGHTS PROTECTION COMMISSION HAVING ITS OFFICE AT: 4TH FLOOR, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEAR HUDSON CIRCLE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, RANI CHENNAMMA CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. MANJULA.N.TEJASWI., ADVOCATE FOR R2; R3-SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SMT. GEETHA.M., ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Smt.Chandana.S., counsel on behalf of Sri.A.V.Nishanth., for the petitioner, Sri.Mahantesh Shettar., AGA for respondent No.1 and Smt.Manjula N.Tejaswi., counsel for respondent No.2 have appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a writ in the nature of prohibition restraining the first respondent from proceeding with the Complaint dated 22.03.2017 vide - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:1218 WP No. 17075 of 2017 Annexure-G and a Writ of Certiorari to quash the Summons issued by the first respondent vide Annexure-G. 3. Counsel Smt.Manjula N.Tejaswi., on instruction submits that the Complaint has been disposed of. Counsel therefore, submits that an appropriate order may be passed. The oral submission made by counsel for respondent No.2 is placed on record. 4. Because of the disposal of the Complaint as of today, nothing survives for consideration in the Writ Petition at this juncture. 5. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE TKN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 37