345 % BEF'0RE}__ V Q & THE HOWBLE MR;Jl!SPI(§E N. ANrai§iV%i:1g B EEN: _ B.S-.S.Jagan ._ ' _ ' S/o. M.B.Selva:shekargin ' _ . Rf;-.: He.21f8, ..2:1.*»2=..1t*.!I.'a,.a.l.e'..?r%.s=-;.i'?sn.r.a.:'I'. .S_it.vi::-3.--.~ " ' [III , uncnflai-iii. 5: (By Adiééééicj 1. A, % smteby Kund%apfir'%?o1su Udupi '£:i.%t."ict. _ S~..iv1':..Raiiq . S10: "8.,_}iey.mid 'Age; No'.'9",_ F*'ishing Harbour, Malpe, V.B.Road, .-Kum-Iapur Talulc. Respondents
.. (By HJ-lanumantharayappa. HCGP for R1; Sri N.Srinivas,
“‘ v.”.,-53-r-..:,~e-.t.e for P9}
nu a\-uv
This Cf-imifiai raetitiaii i’ fikau-I under as-atbn -482 C-r.P.C..
_.;%pt-aying to quash the entine proceedings. complaint and FIR i
Crime i1’o.253i”200-‘r fif Kundapur Paiiee, agaiziat mtitienc. & aw.
rm_:_ __..:;:__ ____:__ __ 1-___ r:__a |___ ‘_ 1…: .l?i .. ‘aI.i.’.~…r1’…’2..a”.’
IIIIH PGLIIIUII II III II. [U I !’;.’i IJED L.§._1. _
made the following:
The petitioner arrayed as
No.253,I2oo4, registered for.,::’ofl’enoea:__ tinder” A ”
nnnfinnn mo 4 {I luv ‘IGOR IDF’. Kilfldhfill 3′ hnn
MI’! I3 I”. ll-l’I.l J.’ 7″‘; Po f J In-lit»!-‘-I 0 I–Ir’-1
101,; ALL; _Aa4_.u___ .I._ ___;”-1; r\!_.._.n. t_o;__mu;- I:|_.._._4.
W I] IIEEJIVTII I. u
2. The ;bif:§f-footie! new “for~c.1i§p0BalA A of petition are
as followsti ‘
‘|’m-5 .9?-n1 fa winch. at-.$……..n ..f _J_H.1rI.re crI_._.-
with other” accused. nepmaenizing
Purchase at Kundapura. had
‘ from complainant during period between
H 27 97.2004, holding out promises to pay
On account of above purchase. petitioner
xwaa to complainant in a sum of Rs.One Cram and
Fot_1_r do The petitioner and other accused failed
+11 1-u-any 1-Ian nah-‘I u-n-nrnlrnf fI1n11a1’| ‘I”‘InI.l’ nnlrl ‘l’II”fl’W’I’Ifl Hi’
uu gang I-uv fauna no nun-was uv-an 3 Inv-
nuuvu assu-
;\_L. ~
U3
..’
Pviaudrs “”11 earnw sausmndm ysuuu Thus. ‘II’.-, V _
cheated oompiainant and misap}rropria1’rsti’ = = ‘V
payable to him. As already statezi.
complaint, Kundapura Police’ registeregi ” crime ” L.
for aforesaid oifences.
3. in the averrncnts of
complaint jiihlfic; is civil in
nature. had filed an
insolvency_A””pefitiorr_ ” of Judicature at
Madriss. is shown as one of his creditors
of Mr.l?1ajarr,r is liable to be quashed.
” in the Sanapamddy Maluwedhar Seshagiri as
of Andhm Pmdesh as another, reported in
the Supreme Court has held:–
‘The High Court should be extremely
‘ oautious and slow to interfere with the
investigation and/or trial of criminal cases and
should not stall the investigation aneiior
I I I I
prosecfirao” -“-‘-‘pt when it E wnv1uu:e”u ‘–W,-‘or.d
A
“V
its
5-.n.y.v2=..;-mero.d.=httn L.
disclose connniion of any oflbnce t)l’__ltlB§t i _
allegations contained in ‘FIR jnotv V
constitute any cognizable cfienm. iif
prosecution is harmed by law er the
convinced that it is ‘”3
1
H5
prev-ht a I % of the i;.rzv._:it.!:s!.a=»_.
OI-rvmn-luau» nas-
mrietfo
prevent abuse of “‘the Court. In
dealing with such the has to
hear he ihteiteiition at the
thmshtilti the 1eg&eit%pmeeee against a
pemoy n af”0tIl.l11Il1’ ._ ” offence is ‘i ‘”
teeth hhehh-ii’ ‘..u”*’€..té!”‘ ‘;.-nblic and s.-:.-oi.-.:tn.!
intclvest. and the society have a
that those committing-
..ofl’encos:i eitiien. agoinst an individual or the
eicgieaitieueiy brought to trial ami, if
adequately punished. ”i”i1e1eI”o1e.
‘ diioildinfl a at-.’.*i…cn fi’…….’-4 fir qtn-.sh…i”g *…..’N–
All’
Fv’_lR’torii:;complaint or mstiaining the competent
x antliority from investigating the allegations
contained in the FIR or complaint or for stalling
the trial of the case. the High Court should be
extremely canafui and circumspect. if inc
&-gaticns wntanr-n-A in the F!!! or cc:n~,t……in-
:5′ er %
HI
iii”. on-A cr.-.’:=..r:-.issicr. of wme crime. the-._n ‘the ‘
High Court must keep the hands oi!’
the investigating agency
investigation without any fetter V
from passing order .
1.1+ run A
The High uourt should go irito
and demerits of At!-..e h-ecsiise
the petitioner Amalusvv sgsiust t._.e
author of the FIR__o_ri’ High
journegri’-». ff harassment
he petitioner on
FIR ‘If “fijII1l’i’I.iIli1.
such a “result I_n.i–…rrL£-.ge 9:
justiceitand. those accused of
_ _ repeat the same. However.
” High”Cc:.:rt is satisfied that the complaint
does net ‘disclose commission of any oifeuce or
1. 1…. I:……’¢…4.-__ L-I_-L A
._ is ..arre”u u_y Lusumuuu ‘r me me
_ ‘ of criminal case would resul- in
” of justice, then it may exercise inherent
.. , povier under section 482 Gr.P.C.”
in the case on hand. averments of complaint accepted
it Won their face value would constitute oifenoefi alleged against
interfere inveiigaiion, W”‘h is ‘t u1n:_ ncn:.i}~.. ‘
5. Therefore, I do not
I-‘-‘Lrst 11′-………..n.Lem. R_.1.Ir.rrt= .Ar_a-*_*._t__i”1*’ar1_..,i1t_s_z,l_I,rV’, is”
Iudge