Karnataka High Court
Pushpam vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 March, 2009
Author: K.Bhakthavatsala
Bench: K.Bhakthavatsala
1 CRL.P.9"/'1/2009 85 MISC.CRL.992/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 4 " i" BEFO RE THE HON'BLE Dr. JUSTICE K. I3iéI.AKTI~I.Af*I/A--T_é.ALA ' C CRIMINAL PETIT1ONc'£'Io.971i)'2f)'O9 815 MISC. CRIMINAL N$:9§2 /20029--- ' BETWEEN: ii 'A i Pushparn, D/o.Appla Naidu, ' . _ _ Managing Director, ' Quest Net India Pv_t..Ltd'., 'I ' . No.32, II Floor, Bioick '..v8"",_, é Ladon Street, Kid_pau.k,"' '«1.;__ _ , " Chennai-iO. V H 75 i V V V ...PETITIONER (By sri.s.J.Chc§utei,.'_Ad»«--. " AND: V V i i A The "state of 'i:;a:fi-azaka, ii « ..... .. » Through Grounds Police Station, Rep. by the State Public" Prosecutor, High CoI.,1rt'of Karnatakaj "H__I_gh Court Building VV'.Ban53w10re~1<«... " - ...RESPONDENT
(Bf. 'sfi}'A A/;.LRa.rr1aI:§rishna, HCGP) _.Tl1iS*»C.riminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., to quash the order dt.21.2.09 passed by the IV Add1.CMM, Bangalore in Cr.No.28/O8 produced hereto as Annexure-A (typed vcopygannexure A-1) 85 etc. I 4' <::RL.?.971 120:}? 85 :\:*::sC.1'c::éja,, 9'Jé::2/2009 Misc.C1".}.992/ 09 is filed praying to Stay theiargiér'v}:--a..72'1--%.:é;99 pméuced as A1:znexure--A & all further pro¢¢H¢£ii1;gs_T."ther'éto,_«V {3r.No.i28jO8 pendizlg 0:1 he file Qf th6;...IV AG?¢EM;"'B£u3gaig;;§¢:
far as he petr, is concerned for the r&€1soxis'3tat_e(i'ih§é:1E:§3;. " ' H These cases coming on for admission, tliiififiay, !';?:ié:'vV{3V<,:~11L1*t maria the following: » ORDE§'u The petitiQn::%:{:FxcC!:i_ser?¥ 1%. $0.23; 2608 on the file of EV gxzidifit-':§é1i::."'Cfi:i§;£.. .§s»jéi::f.;:;':3c-2{tfa.i%1'-lgreigxgistxate at Bangalare, is bafore of Cr.P.C., praying for quashjng V"_tI:1:e.'_ paissed in the above said case at Annexu;"e* 'A'.
_ V. Efksaxlizrgd counsei for the petitiener Submiis that the §ag-:W1~%wgs ibai} and obsying the conditions imposed while grafitifig }3{1t on 21.02.2069, the counsel for the petiticmerl ' '<«.fz§«:*c;us€d appiication for exemption of the personal agpearance _t}*2r:i_ éjccuseé mtzéer Section 317 of CLPLC. On that day, Accuseé was 3150 absent and his persoual appctarazace was exempted. But in 50 far as the case :31' the present petitioner is ceficamed, the Trial Cxzmrt rejected exezmptien application and issued N.B.W to the accused.
(M