Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 25748 (KAR)

RANGAREDDY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/5292/2020 · 2025-06-12

J M Khazi

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20151 CRL.P No. 5292 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5292 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. RANGAREDDY S/O MAREEAPPA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, NO.4, S MAIN PRABHAS SHANKAR ROAD, NEAR APNABARAAR, R M NAGAR, BANGALORE - 16. 2. ESWARAMMA W/O RANGAREDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS NO.4, S MAIN PRABHAS SHANKAR ROAD, NEAR APNABARAAR R M NAGAR, BANGALORE - 16. 3. KUMARASWAMY S/O LATE ANNAIAHREDDY AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, NO.210, BALAJI STREET, 1ST CROSS, R M NAGAR BANGALORE - 16. 4. VARALAKSHMI, W/O KUMARASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20151 CRL.P No. 5292 of 2020 NO.210, BALAJI STREET 1S CROSS, R M NAGAR BANGALORE - 16. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. TEJASWINI V, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. VENKATRAMAN K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY RAMAMURTHY NAGAR P.S., REP BY P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT BANGALORE, BANGALORE - 01. 2. R.L. SARALA, W/O RAMANA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O NO.J 30, KEERTHI HARMONY APTS., TC PLAYA MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE - 36. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.134/2020 DATED 19.03.2020 PENDING BEFORE THE 10TH A.C.M.M., AT BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 506, 341, 376, 504, 34, 420, 324, 342, 323 OF IPC OF RAMAMURTHY NAGAR P.S., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:20151 CRL.P No. 5292 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MS JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Learned counsel for the petitioners has filed a memo seeking permission to withdraw the petition on the ground that already charge-sheet is filed and liberty may be reserved for challenging the same. 2. In the light of the same, the petition is dismissed. 3. Reserving liberty to challenge the charge-sheet, if so advised. 4. In view of the disposal of the petition, pending application/s, if any, stands disposed off, as no separate order is required. SD/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE KBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21 CT: BHK