mg HQAVBLE MR JUSYYCE H£?L£»'.§'ADI Gj 1's'AMES"f .V f , A'
IN THE HIGH CQEERT OF KARLVATAKA
(XRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
Dated this the 17"' Day ¢)fFebmmy, 2609
Before
cnmm' * alPmz'w" n 2a04""zL»;:§_§:'5v:.:*es_
Between:
1
Ashoka S30 gumshanthappa
40 yrs Business, ARfv'a NimH,"Rm¢beng'L§_
Veerappa _'.'FVi;a3,%a1V{;;c1V" "" "
38 yrs3 EniplG}técg .'I?3'a__Sadaif,-.R2aszxeI§§ni:}11*.- V ?eiiti0ners
(By Sri A s3ai"15g~ai<aé1%4.Aé§?;;)"'
And:
1
'W.
1 " 'State: Qf W by SPF
GUI'iISh޴3.$h Kayakad, 63 yrs
Agticlglnnist, W3 Nittur Taiuk
_§:{f:1':e:l':_§c:1'm.§3r, Iiavé-;;"i Qistri at
Respsndenés
{B3} :~see£i¢a*1£:r; .235' for R3,;
__ This Eriminal Petititm flaming on for Eiearing
T =i';'m:2'i made the fgilerwing:
Sri Anangi K Nmféjgimatil, Adv. For R2}
~ , _ 'T This Vfiziiminal Patitisn is flied unéer s. 432, arm p3'a§*ing ta
_ quaah thaprivaie compiaint éatcd EGAEGGZ in PCR 2452861, ate.
this day", the
)§L;»
ORDER
Petition is filed under 3,482, C-r.PC seeking to quash the _
complaint dated 10.4.2001 in PCR 24/2001 and to quash the ‘
initiated in Criminal Case 90’f:’20{)4.
15* respondmt is said is have flied a priiffiite c§mpVi2£int %%¢fbfe* ting ‘V
Ranebennur Police on 10.4.2001 againstjhe gefitigiiar for ‘
under 8.468 and 471, Cr.FC. In tire: {:01/t1p1’z’i’i:1V:Vt” it is stat7e’;’g_f_}ie ‘
S},,No.161 measuring 6.20 acras ,3fird_ in S};*.V;?§l§’£3;’f»aVf?;ff2 V2f;3=$”‘.é’,cres
and in Sy.E\§”o.45f2 measuring 2.l’7V ‘_3:C’$Z{‘3’§”v§?.aV:;I>t,fl¢’;1t§3_’:3t k§J£i3?V311i Nittur
bemngs to tha fenniijgf Vc§i=.1i:eA”r¢s§;Qridtfn’i. – Petitioners and accused are
said to be the $0113 4o:{‘£he V35’ fiséife .a;i&2.,¥1hve a share in the saié prepezties.
_Compiai;xt§ filed by 13 V_ijéVsV1§oncVi§»:nt who is living with his 2″” Wife 3116
Vggfi ‘}€’ag_af.i”aj Viilaga. According to the raspondent, he has not
exe”c§tec¥’_ a Are1€:{aa¢V déc:.:1-“and the 1” and 2″‘; accuseé in collusion with
‘ z1§:<:.1:s<:$i'3__Vto cffifitéfi a forged release deed to cieprive the right of the
" i'e§pQnde}1i,_§1d ta knock off the property. In thig regaré, a private
V' flied and the leaned Eviiagistrata referred the matter to the
,, F374; ye; s,15&3}, Cr.P'C. After thorough search, they couki not miss
…i§§e aiieged forged miease deed. Accordingly, B repeort came to be filed
)3);
Tu)
fimgzeés.’ V
against which protest applicatécm was filed an the basis of which lee2._i*1’2t§:éi<«.. _
Ma$'stra¥e has ordered issuing of summons.
It is seen, when the B report has th«é».p:0l’i,::;{e, ;is fa._.« ix ‘«
matter of pretegt resptmdent once again’;{_”§ie<ix pr(:»Vfr3stj$§rL1:1)1ice:i:§i$ 1i.;. v
absence of tha alleged releasg dezed
investigation, there cannot be Vafigflma §2is::'L*é;A5g;:ainb$t tha€: peHtition::r
much less if no such f<i'§§%1':§.s€ d§ed}§_ ES'vff31;':Vii}5'V'respendent to
contest the €Ct5i«::rt"j§r:;c:V};'i#§§'g'fef«a declaration. In
stead, he has restfigdi the B report was
filed as agai-:_:Vi11st_ t};1_é' b#;1g§§t§ refezrad t0 the P-aiice by
the Eviagis%r a'te_Q1ii1ndent is milling but an abuse of
petitien is ailowed. The impugned private
– Ycgemplaint tha proceedings iniiiated in PC 90752904 beffira she
“§;_\»fFCT:’i$«quashed.
Sdl W
iudge