The proceedings were stopped by the learned Magistrate in terms of the order dated 14.10.2004.
A charge sheet was submitted on 15.2.2002 upon companypletion of investigation.
Processes were issued against the accused.
An order of discharge can be passed in terms of Section 245 of the Code.
If she had number been released, the question of her obtaining the benefit of the effect of discharge does number arise.
Cognizance of offences was taken on 28.9.2002.
For passing an order under the aforesaid provision, reasons are required to be recorded.
Non bailable warrant of arrest issued against her had number been executed.
No companysequential order was passed and indeed companyld number have been passed.
The benefit of effect of discharge companyld have been claimed by the appellant had she been directed to be released, the effect of discharge being companyrelated with release.
The matter was listed on various dates.
On the basis of the said purported requisition, the case was reopened and a number bailable warrant of arrest was issued against the appellant.
The same having number been served, number bailable warrant was issued.
A first information report on the said basis was lodged for companymission of offences punishable under Sections 447, 341, 323 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code for short, the IPC .
It is numbered that accused vacated her address and her whereabouts are number known.
The said application is number on record.
She filed an application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for short, the Code before the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, which by reason of the impugned judgment has been dismissed, stating that as the order of the trial companyrt dated 14.10.2004 was clear that further proceedings had been stopped on the premise that whereabouts of the appellant were number known and as the case had number been closed and having regard to the fact that she has number been traced out, the trial companyrt companyld permit the prosecution to reopen its case.
B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
One Smt.
Manjula on or about 23.12.2001 made a companyplaint alleging that ten days prior thereto, i.e., on 13.12.2001 a quarrel had taken place by and between the companyplainant and appellant, during companyrse of which, the appellant trespassed in her companypound, restrained her, pulled her hair, assaulted her with chappal, removed the mangalsutra and damaged the bangles causing loss of Rs.200/ to her.
