1
IN THE HIGK COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATE!) TI-£18 THE 1%? DAY 0? FEBRUARY 2010
BEFORE
mm I-IOK'BLE ma JUSTICE K N KE8HAVAHAR--£'§&'AN.¢i§ "
cR1m:aIAL PETITION No. 34fs2'e3=' 2£¥o6_
BE'I'WEEH:
?L:RiISHO'1'HAM,
S/O. LAKSHMIPAT}-ii,
AGED AI£3{}{§'1' 50 YEARS,
Nc::.5:2, KADIRENAHALLI,
BSK 2N9 STAGE, _
BANGALC)RE--~?9. V " j' -;';';.f>ETfI3'1ONER
[BY SR1. LAKsHM;KA;:s:%fH RAG; ;f3;D§f{§:C:A'TE).5
1. STATE 0'?4;<ARNATAI<;A;"'_.»LV
BY JAYANAGAR .I§'.€I)L3E() 3TA'I{'ION,
REE, BY STATEw..PUBLf£C PRGSECUTOR,
' HEGH QQURT CQMFLEX,
V BAN@ALQRE~.,
2. .gL.?L3«R§;é?r:Ax;éH';
Sffi). L:'s.TE: --,.(:H1K2{ALIr»zGAIAH,
. .5%..G}E'.-D 'A..'8{)'U'§' 62 YEARS,
915:1'; _NG.2G1f1 1,
A ?'?"€'A' (32035, W MAIN,
'% RPC'A_'LAY€)UT, HAMFINAGAE 21%} STAGE;
7VI.}AYANAGAR, BANGALORE M 49;
% .;..RE}S?GNDEN'I'8
SR1. BALAKRISHNA, HCGP FOR 2:,
SR3 SHANKAR S. BI-'LAT, AQVGCATE FGR R2)
2
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UMBER SECTIQN
432 CR.P.C. PRAYING TC) QUASH THE §J12o<:1a:E:_:a::1\I<3.:sT»+.1:\:._V
CRNG. 21?/2005 OF JAYANAGAR RS. PENDENG Q12': »'£'!s{jIi:
FILE 0? ii ACMML, BANGALORE AS AGAINST A_(§C'US;-if-L2 _
NCL3.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON V
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
§.?..B,_____I?v__',..Ff.3....._.3-3 Ak A %
In this pctitien fiied under the
petitioner heréixtt __P-$0.3M PC
No.16152/2005 €)I1._th6 fimfgr tml»11L"LA;:§1:::i¢na1 CMM,
Bangalora, has, the criminai
prosecutiori iai3j:1::.?:~ed
Responciezgté Néi.' filed 3 private compiaint
urigier V206 " against Accused Nos. 1 to 3
.<:;fi'e:A: 1c,*e ..zii;11c_ier Section 420 of {PC}. The leaxneci
}\2Iagi$'t;{a§;te, Evhom the compiaint was presented,
_V:"..._I:*¢§§e§:f:red under Sectisn 156(3) cf Cr.P.C. t9 the
Q_"v;§Vi;1'*if8«:{Aié£i{sna} mslice for invesiigatiagfi, and report. Ptusuani
refereace, the Jayanagar Police regstemd cage ':21
No.21?/2005 and tcoiqsap investigation It is at
thai stagé, the petiiisner appmachfid this Cent": undasr
,.)\ I
2""
3
Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court by Order dated o5.09.2Q{§§A_V
stayed the investigation by the Respondent-Pcsli<:e__.;":"'£%:.'
maanwhile, a_ memo datfid i22.()9.200 8m was 3
learned counsel far Respondsnt
lettcr dated 30.08.2008 sent hy’h_ig:
by Speed Fast ret:urne :é T_
endorsement ” Addresfiy it is clear
that ‘(ha gm mspofifieglt in the
case before: in 2008 itself.
in spite of has not taken any
steps to bxfifiig of the complainant
on resort}. Emu fietifiéxz. Section 482 Cr.P.C3.,
§r:}1¢rei:1’£;uas}:1ing 駖Vf,1;¢__’C:x*i3:r3iz1a1 Pmsecutior; based on a
1f)i”§§I$1tf§”£:{)IIi}3i;E3.iI),f!’»iS seught, the complainant is a proper
and in his absence, the High S0111′:
Qééimai qmafih the proceedings in axercise sf pewer zmder
=;T1′;r.P.C. Since the mrignai camgiainani baa
_r;?.i{%;c1 130 steps have met: taken :0 brizzg his Iagal
feprésentatives an recerd, the mattar has ahagiad.
4
Therefore, this petitioil is diSII1i$Sf:é with fibefizy tg
petitienér ta renew his request if need arises in futLii’t:J ..
KG}?