Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 88943 (KAR)

MALLIKARJUN C K v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/6695/2024 · 2025-08-18

B M Shyam Prasad

Transfer Petitionbody2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31890 WP No. 6695 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 6695 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: MALLIKARJUN C K S/O KENCHAPPA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, R/AT KALIDASA CIRCLE, HULIYAR GATE, CHIKNAYAKANHALLI POST, CHIKNAYAKANHALLI DISTRICT, TUMKUR - 572214. NOW IN CENTRAL PRISON, HAVING CTP NO.5447, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU - 560100. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MANJUNATHA RAO LOKANDE N.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHAN SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TUMKURU DISTRICT TUMKUR - 572101. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31890 WP No. 6695 of 2024 3. THE CHIEF SUPERINTENDENT CENTRAL PRISON, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA, BENGALURU - 560100. 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KARNATAKA PRISON CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, SHESHADRI ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001. 5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE CHIKNAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION, TUMKUR - 572214. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.K.P. YASHODHA., AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE POLICE REPORT DATED 16.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE R-2 BEARING NO. DCRB(3)PAROLE/12/2023 (PRODUCED VIDE ANNX-F) TO THE WRIT PETITION; QUASH THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED. 26.12.2023 ISSUED BY THE R- 3 BEARING NO. BCP/J3/659/2023 (PRODUCED VIDE ANNX-G) TO THE WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:31890 WP No. 6695 of 2024 ORAL ORDER This Court, on 03.03.2025, has adjourned the petition by a peremptory order and despite opportunity, the petitioner has not complied with the office objection. Hence, the petition stands dismissed. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE NV