Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 20833 (KAR)

SMT. M B NAGARATHNA v. PUTTASWAMY @ MARIYAPPA

CRL.A/306/2013 · 2025-02-13

Shivashankar Amarannavar

Criminal Appealbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6437 CRL.A No. 306 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 306 OF 2013 BETWEEN: SMT. M B NAGARATHNA W/O M. SHAMKARAMURTHY AGED 50 YEAS R/O 1798, 100 FEET ROAD, SUBHASHNAGARA, MANDYA - 571 401 …APPELLANT (BY SRI. R PRAMOD, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PUTTASWAMY @ MARIYAPPA S/O KEMPEGOWDA AGED 43 YEARS 2. VARALAKSHMI W/O PUTTASWAMY @ MARIYAPPA AGED 39 YEAS Digitally signed by HEMAVATHY GANGABYRAPPA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6437 CRL.A No. 306 of 2013 3. SHARADA K M W/O S RAMAKRISHNA AGED 47 YEARS 4. S RAMAKRISHANA S/O SIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 ARE R/O V.V.NAGAR KALLAHALLY MANDYA - 571 401 5. STATE BY MANDYA WEST POLICE MANDYA - 571 401 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.SHANKARAPPA, ADV. FOR R3 AND R4; SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R5; R1 AND R2 SERVED) THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/S.372 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT DATED:17.12.12 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DIST., AND S.J. MANDYA IN S.C.NO.45/2010 - ACQUITTING THE RESPONDENT/ ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND 3(1)(X) OF SC/ST ACT. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6437 CRL.A No. 306 of 2013 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR ORAL JUDGMENT Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 is present. Learned counsel for the appellant is absent. There is no representation on the appellant's side. The appeal is of the year 2013 and it is listed today for final hearing. 2. On 03.02.2025, learned counsel for the appellant has sought time and specific date is fixed for hearing. Inspite of specific date is fixed for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant is not present for arguing the appeal. It appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. SD/- (SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR) JUDGE KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43