- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18511 CRL.P No. 83 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 83 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI RAJENDRA S B AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, S/O SRI. BASAPPA, 2. SRI. YOGESH S R AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, S/O SRI. RAJENDRA S.B., (NOTE HIS ACTUAL NAME IS YOGESH S.R., BY IT IS WORNGLY MENTIONED AS NAVEEN IN FIR.) 3. SRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR S.R. AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, S/O SRI. RAJENDRA S.B., (NOTE HIS ACTUAL NAME IS PRAVEEN KUMAR S.R. BUT IT IS WRONGLY MENTIONED AS PRAVEEN IN FIR) 4. SRI. PAVAN KUMAR S R AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O SRI. RAJENDRA S.B., (NOTE HIS ACTUAL NAME IS PAVAN KUMAR S.R. BUT IT IS WRONGLY MENTIONED AS PAVAN IN FIR) Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18511 CRL.P No. 83 of 2024 ALL ARE RESIDING AT NEEDUGUMBA VILLAGE KANURU, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT -571216. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHASHIDHAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE BY PONNAMPET POLICE STATION, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPOUND, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SRI. SHIVAKUMARA S/O SRI. MADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, 3. SRI. MAHADEVA SWAMY S/O SRI. MADAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, THE ABOVE RESPONDENTS NO.2 & 3 ARE R/AT NIDUGUMBA VILLAGE, KANURU, PONNAMPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 216 (RESPONDENT NOs.2 & 3 ARE THE SONS AND LEGAL HEIRS OF THE COMPLAINANT, LATE SMT. NAGARATHNA DIED ON 6.5.22) …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESH, ADDL.SPP FOR R1; R2 & R3 - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.08.2023 UNDER SEC.242(2) OF CR.PC APPLICATION FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENTS IN C.C.NO.223/2021 PENDING - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18511 CRL.P No. 83 of 2024 BEFORE THE LD.CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C AT PONNAMPETE AND ETC., THIS PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Learned Additional SPP, on instructions, would submit that the subject petition is preferred in the year 2024 and charges have been framed in the year 2022 and trial is in progress and therefore, the petition would not be entertainable at this juncture. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners seeks leave of the Court to withdraw the petition and avail of remedy. 3. In the light of the charges being framed, the entertainment of the petition will run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MINAKSHI BALA V. SUDHIR KUMAR1. 1 (1994) 4 SCC 142 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:18511 CRL.P No. 83 of 2024 4. Reserving liberty to the petitioners to avail of such remedy, as is available in law, the petition stands disposed. In view of disposal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE AV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 132