IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED TI-HS THE 33" DAY OF SEPTEMBER. 2010 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GQWDA erimina: Petition No. 4939 of 2(:pe(_M1_":§3_ieV'ee . N Between 1. " ,. Yfidyaranyapura. Sathyanarayana Reddy, 1 S/O Sesha Reddy, Aged about 35 years, _ Divisional Manager,' .. " V '_ ~ R/at, #587/A, 1stF1ooi~,.._ " T- 931 A Main, Ye1ahanka----N_eVv Tewn, * Bangalore. " ' --. . GopikrishnaK u -- ~ s/0 KBjShes};1agir1;.: _ Aged R/at"#34;'-'.431Mggzim.V » 74v_Sri.kaIit:esh.w'a.1fi''N3'gai'a, MahaIa}«:§}11i1i_ '0=.1~£:, Bair1_ga1Vore._ ' " " .« N3~83r3J"U*»-... ..... % is/0 Chikkegowda. * ._ --.Aged_ 32 Years, ' R/_at,V"#V1.124/2, 3rd Cross, In -fljprit of Venu Gopala Temple Dcddabommasandra . .. Petitioners (By Sri. K Prasarlna Shetty, Adv.) %,. State of Karnataka By Police Inspector Wilson Garden Police Station Bangalore Represented by Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka Bangalore 3...: 2. Sri Madhusudan Manvi _ Aged about 44 Years Working as Assistant "Manager Shriram Transport Finance Co." Ltd; No.29/A, K H Road ' Bangalore it C , 'B _ Respondents [By Sr1. B, Ra}asabrarria.:':.ya Hosp for R. 1, Sri.' Gowda, Ad'V--.._"for_R.2) ,.ffh.is"jCrlVfl?; ~fi1'e.d"-U/S';482 Cr.P.C by the advocate for the petitioners psraying j that this I-Ion'ble Court may be pleased _to~.'s"quas_hrA..sthe proceedings as against the Petrs.'aboVe named, i*n_C.C.No. l7609/ 2009 pending on the file ofnthve IV' the A».'C.M.M., Bangalore. ,_Tl1.i_s Criminal Petition coming on for Admission, «. day._th_e Court, made the following: ORDER
” J’_Fhe petitioners who are arrayed as accused 7, 8
9 in C.C.No.17609/09 pending on the file of IV
C __?Addl. CMM, Bangalore, have preferred this petition for
quashing of further proceedings of the said case.
&.
2. Facts leading to the case are 2
The second respondent lodged a complaint
against one Sheik Mohammed Rafique and four others
to the first respondent ~ Police alleging that th.e”y,ghave
committed offence punishable under Secs.408′,_&» and
420 IPC. The Police after inVestigatin.g_p’pth:e
filed a charge sheet against id
including the petitioners; e”tr_ial Coiirt
cognisance of the offence for~registration of the
case and process’ including the
petitioners. Against. .. petitioners
have of further
proceedingsV:i1ifC:.:Ct.l$J’el:l’?’tiO9/O9.
3.5′ ~ petitionersand second respondent filed an
” « underwsec. 482 seeking leave of the Court to
_ to compound the offence. In the
applicatian, they have stated, allegations made in the
is complaint and materials collected during investigation
‘”.l”c’1o: not constitute the alleged offence against these
petitioners/ accused 7, 8 and 9 under sec. 408 and 468.
$4
At best, it may constitute an offence under Sec. 420 IPC
which can be compoundable with the leave of the
Court. The second respondent — cornplainvaieitiiiafter
realising, the allegations made and n1ateriais”
during investigation do not constit.ute– allegedu
offence against the petitionersiyndeggsec…’
and at best they may constitute offeince;
420, which is compoundabie-,..iagijeedh’forigncotnpounding
the complaint withOg;iibe:«1:y ” with the case
against othei” accused.’ filed by the
parties Counsel is taken
on re-cordI’~»t_ hi
4. –appearing for the State, supporting
th;e~contenti_on’ of the “parties submits, allegations do not
the Viailegecl offence against the petitioners
V_ and 468 and it may constitute an,
offence-.tinder Sec. 420, which is compoundable and
it .ep4e1’n*iission sought for by the parties may be granted
proceedings against these persons may be closed.
&,.
5. Considering the reasons stated in the application
that continuation of criminal proceedings against these
petitioners would not serve any purpose andvituitihéwoulci
amount to abuse of process of law, crimina1″‘petitio’n_”is
allowed. Proceedings in C.C.No.176O9,1{}»E’§_: fa1’ ‘as,
petitio11ers/ accused 7, 8 care, .’c.onc’e1*nedV:.,is
quashed. State is at <Iib.ertyV"*to"'
proceedings against other accused.