Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 5832 (KAR)

SHRI SHANKAR S/O MALLAPPA VIBHUTI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

CRL.P/101732/2022 · 2026-02-09

V Srishananda

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1879 CRL.P No. 101732 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101732 OF 2022 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SHRI SHANKAR S/O MALLAPPA VIBHUTI AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, OCC. R/O. HOUSE NO. 46, BAGARET, OLD HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD. 2. SMT. SAVITRI W/O ASHOK JINDE AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O. KALMESHWAR NAGAR OLD HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KUSHAL V. BOLMAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY GOKUL ROAD POLICE STATION, HUBBALI, DIST. DHARWAD, NOW REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, CIRCUIT BENCH, DHARWAD. 2. SMT. ANNAPURANA W/O BANAPPA HOSAMANI AGED ABOUT 54 , OCC. HOUSEWIFE, R/O KUNDAGOL, TQ. KUNDAGOL, DIST. DHARWAD. …RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN C.C.NO. 602/2019 (P.C. NO. 260/2015) ON THE FILE OF THE JMFC I COURT, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD AND QUASH THE P.C. NO. 260/2015 DATED 15.04.2015 AND FIR IN GOKUL ROAD PS CRIME NO. 24/2016 DATED 03.04.2016 AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO. 602/2019 REGISTERED FOR THE Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2026.02.11 15:04:09 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:1879 CRL.P No. 101732 of 2022 OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC 120(B), 417, 418, 419, 420, 465, 471 R/W 34 OF IPC BEFORE THE JMFC I COURT, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD AGAINST THE PETITIONERS HEREIN AS THE SAME BEING TOTALLY ILLEGAL AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW 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. Despite granting sufficient time, the office objections have not been complied with. 2. Hence, the petition is dismissed for non-prosecution. Sd/- (V.SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RHR/-CT-CMU LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 96