- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1504-DB CCC No. 100014 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION NO.100014 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SHRI MADHUKAR S/O. MADHAVRAO ATHANIKAR AGE. 91 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. #775, ANGOL, KHANAPUR ROAD, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI, DIST. BELAGAVI-590006. …COMPLAINANT (BY SRI. SHIVRAJ S. BALLOLI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. MOHAMMED KAMIL ABDULRAUF BUKHARI AGE. 48 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. FLAT NO.5, SHIVAGANGA APARTMENT, SUBHASH NAGAR, BELAGAVI. 2. SHRI SUNIL S/O GOVIND KAKATKAR AGE. 44 YEARS, OCC. ADVOCATE, R/O. CTS NO.5713/A-15, INDRAPRAST NAGAR, JAKKERI HONDA, BELAGAVI. 3. SHRI PRASAD S/O SRIDHAR GOVEKAR AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE/ BUSINESS, R/O.CTS NO.1836/1 JED GALLI, Digitally signed by VINAYAKA B V Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1504-DB CCC No. 100014 of 2025 SHAHAPUR, BELAGAVI. … ACCUSED 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, M.S.BUIDLING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001. …PROFORMA RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA FOR R4) THIS CIVIL CONTEMPT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 AND 12 OF THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, PUNISH THE ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3 FOR WILLFULLY DISOBEYING THE ORDER DATED.13/06/2023 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WP NO.103622/2023 AS PER ANNEXURE-A & ETC., THIS CONTEMPT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:1504-DB CCC No. 100014 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) Sri. Shivaraj S. Balloli, the learned counsel for the complainant, and Sri. Praveen K. Uppar, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the proforma fourth respondent, are heard on the complainant’s grievance overruling office objections. It would suffice for this Court to observe that after arguing for some time, Sri. Shivaraj S. Balloli submits that the complainant may be permitted to withdraw this complaint as it is not against any official and it is because of certain sale deeds executed by a learned counsel [the second respondent] despite being aware of the interim orders granted. The learned counsel also submits that this Court may observe that the withdrawal of the complaint should not prejudice any remedy that would be available to the complainants. This Court is persuaded to accept these submissions, and the complaint stands disposed of as withdrawn subject to all just exceptions. Sd/- (B.M.SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE RSH, CT:VP LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 6