Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5436 (KAR)

NAGAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA GOPALI, v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/103374/2025 · 2026-02-20

V Srishananda

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2696 CRL.P No. 103374 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103374 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. NAGAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA GOPALI, AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 2. CHANNAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA GOPALI AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 3. ISHAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA GOPALI, AGE. 43 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, ALL ARE RESIDING AT MACHENHALLI HALLI VILLAGE, TQ. SHIRAHATTI, DIST. GADAG-582120. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVA SHIRUR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA SHIRHATTI POLICE STATION, R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580001. 2. CHANDANA W/O. SHARANAPPA MARIGOUDRA AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER, R/O. MACHENHALLI VILLAGE, TQ. SHIRHATTI, DIST. GADAG-582120 NOW AT ANAJIGERI, TQ. HARAPANAHALLI, DIST.DAVANAGERI-583125. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y. DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE SERVED TO R2) CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Date: 2026.02.21 11:44:51 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:2696 CRL.P No. 103374 of 2025 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. (528 OF BNSS), PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND QUASH THE FIR, COMPLAINT, CHARGE-SHEET AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO IT IN S.C. 43/2024 (ARISING OUT OF SHIRHATTI P.S. CR. NO. 35/2023) PENDING BEFORE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT GADAG FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 306 R/W 34 OF IPC, IN SO FAR AS ACCUSED NO.1 TO 3/PETITIONERS ARE CONCERNED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA) 1. None appeared on behalf of the petitioners. 2. Even on the last date of hearing, there was no representation for the petitioners. 3. Taking note of the fact that the petitioners are charged with an offence punishable under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code and have not shown diligence in prosecuting the matter, the petition is accordingly dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE AC CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 41