IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALOR:§ Dated thisthe 8"'dayofDecembe:", 2009 " ' Before THE H()N'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUi?AD!._ " _ Criminal I'etiti0t; Between.- 1 Lo) Sri H S Sidde Gowda, 69 yrs S/0 late Deve Gowda Sri H S Ralnmh, 4.] yrs . S/0 Sidcfe G0wda__ _ V H S Mohan, 'I . S/o Sidde V ' Al} arVe._:7!.q Shiméga City _ Peiitioners (By sn K M tianihdng, /\,c;iV\}L§ jV* " And: S._'i2iii0n .H0u_se- Offié-CI" ---------- ~ " 'V " . :K.di:=: PCI:n;r;':_Siaztion, Shimoga 'S/C-'fate S '!.i.:%h:§'u Bhat Rf; Kotc F?Qzfd, Shimoga Respondents
~ B .Baii:1}§§iShna, G-P;
Sri’ Adv. for R2)
W”
Coi’:’.PIa iFi’i1liI. I
This Criminal Petition is filed under S482 of the Cr.PC p1″d}/illg to
quasth {he efiarge sheet in Crime No.52/2(}()4 pending before Ehe”‘—JMFC,
Shéinogzi. 3
This Criniiiizif Petiiioii comiiig on for Heaufiiig this_jd’iiy.-«iii-e__ CUv’._1I:E_
made the fOHOVv’i1]g.’
ORDER .»w-
Petitioner has soughi for quashi,ng_r the f)’i=oee.eLiings[,iv:-ii. £58′???/2′.{}{i5.”‘e
pending before the }MFC. Shimoga in Crii:ie1eKN.r3.52/2004,
Petitioners are the neighbour:’.:_ of ti;e:’2:”V’d r_’:$iip0Ar1’dc1ii_ eompiainant. The
7″‘: respoiideiit has fileiii é1=£,:'()IT1p’iai11′{ £15 A”¢’i§”I”L”!’_V[I1.()’LV§’;§,£hI. According to the
petitioners e0unse:I,'”:h”e:ife :i’f:.:…”i;) f)’I”i1}2.;i__ .’fzicie’*’ea;~:,-_e aiihough charge sheet is filed
and there is no such oveij! .:.1_d’ 4:r1Ir’ibuaI’ed to the petitioner.
Heizrsl {he goizeiiiineiit V’p!e.zider. None represems {lie respoiidetit
When is_iio1’ieed is, petitioners being 1}Cigf]1′)OE11″S. aillegisig vioiatioii of
Iihfibilifdilig ‘~bVye’;.I;iws, 1″epoi’I’e.d the seine to the Ciiy Municipal Council, The
Meifiieipiilu “ALi1iiritie.s also visited the spot and foiind that there is vioiatiozi of
iv
\
the bye laws. It appezzrs, as per the .\’Lti)miSSt0t1 made. as at counter blast,
responciem filed a complaint atgainst the petitioners.
Government Pteader submits that afready investig;1.t’irm_: ti.) _c<'1–.r.n'pl.ete at1h« ..
charge sheet is filed. The statement' of the tteigllbotltahtitfihbeelt reetfirried. i
It is also submitted by the petitiofie':sV"'counsel ithat t31–:-finding that there
is viotation and on such dermétitioit hywttm. Mttiiiggipal Authdrities. taking
advantage of the same, petitioner t1;1_.§Abeen'i15i§pf_i§iitt§£3;.which act £1mOttl1ES to
abuse of process.
PetitE_011ei'”.xt counsel has 212.35″ “nrocfueed 21 memo which is said to have
been fited in fa.’/*’i,V'()”E.(2(}O5~.b%:i:f?i;C _tt”e.._eivii! court’ by the respondent to the effect
that he hz1s’c»0mplieCt with’the direction of the trial court regarding temevat of
eei’1:~;!1jueti0i1 tfiithe’ extent of 1.5 mtrs on the back sicfe and 0.55 mtrs on the
right_ V Th:iS~.,f3ElCt’V to Show that the ctemotition carried out is not by the
‘.tpetitéene.tjsi ht1t’hy ttte respondettt himsetti The filing of complaint against the
.pe’tit.i0nei:s’ tbtf i2.;11’i0t1s offences; woutd amount to abuse of process atthough
._ch’arge_she’et is tifed.
Accurdingiy. petitiozn is allomzci.
before the }MFC, Shimcagzfs is quatshed
impugned pmceedings_ fjending