IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 12"' DAY OF OC'I'0BE.R'2O_0i9"--,v'4
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE :{*IUi';I.}\&'/;'\'})1J.CIIRIEMESH O'
CRIMINAL PETITION O1N0:§16n$6 OE2oo>I E
BETWEEN:
MR MELEDATII ..SAN’ATHI_S!O”SRI M KUMARAN
AGED ABOUT 3I0′:I'{_EAR-S, I I
R/AT NO.19, ICRC-SS.
ANJANAIDRILA-‘1’*OUT,7 f I V
KONANAKUNTI3
3:5Q.:Q_52_ ; V .. PETITIONER
(By SII”C}4PIAP1’REf)D:_Y’*;.:’AfiV)
[ « STATE OF KARNATAKA
V I. 1531;, TOWN POLICE STATION
« CHIANNAPATNA,
B.AN§3ALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
ERI CHIKKA RANGAIAH @ RAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O SR1 HOTTE THIMME GOWDA
R/AT YELE KADAKALLU VILLAGE
W
AND POST, HULIYURDURGA HOBLI
KUNIGAL TLAUK,
TUMRUR DISTRICT. RESPONIQENT-S’~VL. x
(By Sn G EIIAVANI SINGH, SPF FOR RI).V__'”i”i-.,:. it
THIS CRL.P FILED U/:Si}t8i2″ CR.R;Ci.__”iRy ‘i*;f1–IE
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER’ RRIA3*1No»”THAT
TIIIS HON’BLE COURT MM BE’PLEASEB1TO’Q’i;}ASIr¥”,
THE COMPLAINT DT.6.5.’2,007, ” .__RE(31’S’I’E*1R’ED IN
CRIME.NO.78/2007, CHANNAPATNA I I 13.8. ; (FIRST
INFORMATION REPORT IN’ *ACRIIvf_.E.NO.’7’8/2007) AND
PROCEEDINGS IN C.C{1’~TO.’3_1/2008»._ON’~THE FILE OF THE
1>RL.C.J(IR.DN.) & 3UD.ICIAL’:MAG§STR.ATE I CLASS,
CHANNAPATNA B~’I'”~fALLQWING” THE ABOVE
PETITION. I
_This_C17i_ii1iii3’1..PetitiVOI1 on for admission this day,
the Court madeo…the’foliowiIIg:g I
QWORDER
has Sought for quashing the proceedings
A i’iI_..iC_I.iiC;;i\’.Io.31/O8 before the J MFG, Channapatna.
it A complaint has been filed against the petitioner for
U Offences punishabie under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC
W3′
r/w Section 1.87 of the M.V.Act alleging that the vehicle___of the
petitioner is involved in causing accident to the co1ripilai”riainit.i’=.
3. Beard.
4. According to the learned for”t.he._petiltioineyi;
there is lot of discrepancy in accident
register regarding the and also that
specific vehicle_n’u1_nber’ha:s’ It is a case of
hit and ruri”‘aiidV ahs been falseiy
implicated :ci::”o_I_i’11E.9§nsatioir1 since his vehicle has
been ‘ciuliico,veredV iirisiiirance.
1 the learned S.P.P. has contended that there
are two ~eye\vitnesses to the incident and based on their
riarrationof facts during the course of investigation the vehicle
ii riumher has been traced and charge sheet has been filed after
i ” *-‘completion of investigation and there is a prima facie case
W
against the petitioner and accordingiy, sought for dismissal of
the petition.
6. it is stated by the learned Counsel~for.i’jthe”‘;ietitio:ieiv 9
that there is discrepancy in the c.omplaii’1ti’ea.nd. itliei”afe.eid:s+:_11t
register. and also as to the invo-l.yement of. the iV’sI:’.zl1ivQ.l,E£-‘in the’
accident. This is a matter consideration by the
learned Magistrate by of there is no such
illegality to l3l€–Tl&fC proceedings. In
that View 2:0? disposed of directing the
petitioner to aipnroachii seeking for
discharge. i it A
Sd/J
SUDGE