Sri B Kumar vs State Of Karnataka By on 31 May, 2018

[Cites 15, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri B Kumar vs State Of Karnataka By on 31 May, 2018

Bench: K.N.Phaneendra

                            1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 31st DAY OF MAY, 2018

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

                Crl.P. No.606 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

Sri. B. Kumar,
S/o Sri.S. Bhojappa,
Aged about 52 years,
R/at No.56, 5th 'A' Main,
2nd Stage, Gokulam,
Mysuru - 570002.                          ... Petitioner

(By Sri.K.M.Somashekara for
 Sri.C.R.Gopalaswamy, Advocate for petitioner)

AND:

1.   State of Karnataka by
     Vijayanagara Police,
     Mysuru City, Mysuru,
     Rep. by State Public Prosecutor,
     High Court of Karnataka,
     Bangalore - 560001.

2.   M/s. Varsha Cables Pvt. Ltd.,
     No.344, Hebbal Industrial Area,
     Mysuru - 570016,
     Represented by its Chairman,
     Managing Director and Shareholder,
     Sri.Puttaraju.P. Gowda,
     S/o Puttaswamy.

3.   Sri.Puttaraju P Gowda,
     S/o Sri. Puttaswamy,
                             2

    Aged about 56 years,
    Chairman, Managing Director
    and Shareholder,
    M/s. Varsha Cables Pvt. Ltd.,
    No.344, Hebbal Industrial Area,
    Mysuru - 570 016.      ... Respondents


(By Sri.Chetan Desai, HCGP for R1,
 Sri.Raghavendra.K., Advocate for R2 and R3)

       This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the orders passed by the I
Addl. Civil Judge and C.J.M. Mysuru dated 15.04.2014
and 04.11.2015 taking cognizance against the petitioner
for the offence punishable under Sections 104, 177,
403, 406, 420, 405, 415 and 425 of IPC and Section 23,
24 and 25 of Trade Marks Act and Section 468 and 471
of    IPC     in    C.C.No.126/2014      (arising  out   of
Cr.No.221/2012 of Vijayanagara Police, Mysuru),
consequently quash the entire proceedings pending on
the file of I Addl. Civil Judge and C.J.M., Mysuru.

      This Criminal petition is coming on for 'orders' this
day, the Court made the following:

                       ORDER

It appears that the petitioner had already moved the trial Court for discharge by filing an application under Section 239 Cr.P.C., which came to be dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 23.12.2017.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to 3 challenge the said order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 239 of Cr.P.C.

3. In view of the aforesaid submission, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the petition and liberty is granted as prayed for.

4. IA-2/2017 does not survive for consideration as the matter is disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE JS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court