The Senior Intelligence Officer vs. Mahendra Kumar Premchand

Original PDF →
CRL.P/4358/2019HC KarnatakaGSTCNR KAHC01017994201902 August 2021Bench: K.SOMASHEKAR3 pages
For Petitioner: SRI VIKRAM A HUILGOL, ADVOCATEFor Respondent: SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI KIRAN S. JAVALI, ADVOCATE

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2021 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SOMASHEKAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.4358/2019 BETWEEN: THE SENIOR INTELLIGENCE OFFICER DGGI, BANGALORE ZONAL UNIT, NO 112, SP ENCLAVE, ADJACENT TO KARNATAKA BANK, K. H. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560001 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI VIKRAM A HUILGOL, ADVOCATE) AND: MAHENDRA KUMAR PREMCHAND, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, S/O PREMCHAND, NO. 51, 4A, PUSHPVATIKA, VANI VILAS ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE - 560004. PROPRIETOR OF M/S PARAS MARKETING NO.144,3RD FLOOR, T.28 PURVI PLAZA, COTTON PET MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE-52. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI CHANDRASHEKARA K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI KIRAN S. JAVALI, ADVOCATE) ***** THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 439(2) CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECTING THAT THE RESPONDENT/ACCUSED BE ARRESTED AND COMMITTED 2 TO CUSTODY U/S 439(2) OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 132(1)(a),132(1)(b) OF CENTRAL GOODS AND SERVICES TAX ACT, 2017 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE SPECIAL COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BANGALORE DATED 30.05.2019 IN CR.NO.20-2019 DGGI.F.NO.Va/12B/2018- 19 PF-1 IN SOFAR AS IT ALLOWS THE RESPONDENT'S APPLICATION U/S 437 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 AND ENLARGES THE RESPONDENT ON BAIL (ANNEXURE-A). THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER Sri Vikram A. Huilgol, learned counsel for the petitioner is present before the Court physically. So also, Sri Chandrashekar K., learned counsel for respondent is present before the Court physically and representing Sri Kiran S. Javali, learned counsel who is on record.

2.

In this matter, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a memo seeking permission for withdrawal of the petition as it does not survive for consideration. Memo is placed on record.

3

3.

In view of the submission made and the memo filed, the counsel for the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the petition as prayed for. Accordingly, the Petition is dismissed as withdrawn. JUDGE

PL*

Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.