Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Jaideep Singh vs State Of Karnataka on 14 January, 2020

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2020

                         BEFORE

        THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE B.A. PATIL

            WRIT PETITION NO.23841/2018

BETWEEN:

1.     Jaideep Singh
       S/o Narinder Singh
       Aged about 50 years
       Director, Unitech Valdel
       Valmark Pvt. Ltd.
       R/at No.24, 1st Street
       Shantiniketan
       New Delhi - 110 021.

2.     Ajaya Chandra
       S/o Ramesh Chandra
       Aged about 50 years
       Director, Unitech Valdel
       Valmark Pvt. Ltd.
       R/at No.C-41, Mayfair Gardens
       New Delhi - 110 016.               ... Petitioners

(By Smt. Farah Fathima, Advocate)

AND:

1.     State of Karnataka by
       Bharatiya Nagar Police Station
       Bengaluru - 560 012.
       Represented by Public Prosecutor
                            -2-




     High Court of Karnataka
     Bengaluru - 560 001.

2.   Mrs. Bhargavi Vattigunta
     W/o Yallanty Satish
     Aged about 40 years
     R/o No.21, Bindu Anmol Apartments
     Amarjyothi Nagar
     Bengaluru - 560 040.           ... Respondents

(By Sri. H.R. Showri, HCGP for R1;
    Sri. V. Ranjith Shankar, Adv. for R2)

     This Writ Petition is filed under Section 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India and Section 482 of
Cr.P.C. praying to quash the PCR.No.13348/2016 dated
28.11.2016 filed by R-2 before the 4th Additional Chief
Metropolitan      Magistrate     at    Bengaluru     in
C.C.No.21629/2017.

      This Writ Petition is coming on for Orders, this
day, the court made the following:

                        ORDER

Learned High Court Government Pleader is present and accepts notice for respondent No.1-State.

2. Sri. V. Rangith Shankar, learned counsel filed power for respondent No.2 and the same is taken on record.

-3-

3. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that the matter has been amicably settled between the parties by withdrawing the complaint and hence, the petition becomes infructuous.

4. In view of the settlement and as the petition has become infructuous, the Writ Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.

Sd/-

JUDGE NR/-