T C Chacko Inspector Of Police vs A Lakshman S/O Anjanappa on 31 March, 2009

(By Sri M.B.RAVI KUMAR, ADV.)

iiiiiii

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/$432 CR.P.C._4v?i§AfING

$0 QUASH THE EN’I’iRE PROCEEDINGS IN c.c.No.;o6/2£>e2_¢»Q’_rgL-

FILE OF THE C.M.M., B’LORE. V L-

THES PETITEON BEING RESERVED on é6_/3–/2009.’-‘wig €:o’i;«:.1i<:.:;:"'%,
ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER–._Tf~£IS DAR .c:o1}ji?rr"m;'z')E THE "

F'OLLOWiNG:~

This pctitioza is by Section 482 cf
Cr.P.C. praying quash the entire
proceedings of the learned C.M.M.

2. _ the complaixlantfrcspondcnt
hgrxjin is, as I-icévaimc Guard in the residence of Sri

1¢%a%.’;:.>_. and 13:. Nagambika Eicvi, ms. Ofiiccr. Sri

RP. Commandcr Gcnctmi (Home Guards)

gm Exfiaamcigg; – ircputy Director Civil Defence his Wife

‘ is new working as Joint Sccretaxy, Department

Tcchnolcgr, Govt. of Kamafaka.

Dur1’x1g the period 1996-98 Dr.A.Nagambika Devi, was

as Chicf Exacutivc Oficcr, Zilla Panchayath, Karwar, and

/

Dcvi, from the CB! oficcrs and tore into pieces. +-

prcxzccdings have been recorded in a up; ‘”

is in the pcisscssion of the CB! oficcig

search, Dr.A.Nagambika Devi Shéiizfié

unfounded allegations against the Went
on filing several complaints agencies
before various authoxitigs. been
maliciously with to pmbc the
investigating of (381 case against
Dr.A.Nagambj I§a”VDe§}§» _vc%;§lfi VA Therefore, R.P.ShaIma,
husband of % :3;:-.A. has directed his employee
Ahaxmazz, VI’_’fQ3’.lLl(‘# ‘(}’LIVé1″€]., ,’~ complaint against the Search
Dy.SupcIintcndemt of police, two

insficéwfi fximcsscs. The rcspondcnt has dclibtratcly

ago: one Lady Inspector Wfliadics Jay.-anthi

‘two po.:iic,*«ev”‘C;0Iv1staI)}acs who wcrc present during the search. It

i ti1£: ‘<:.asc of the respondent that the: Inspcctom abused them

that all thc accused have beaten the complainant and

V — Hucchcgowda was iociécd in the toilet. Fuxflgzcr according

ccmplainant, he submitted a complaint to the police on

2

‘>2’

4/.-

prflceedings in C.C.NO. 106/ 2002 is at the instance of the

respondent] oompiainant on the ground of abusix1_g’T’.._”‘ -aqld

threatening him with dire consequences and caufiing

injuries to him. Whereas, the Court below prizna a’ b

vimv that no sanction is mquircd to iI1VvT_%Stig%_3′.th:v the

basis of the private compiaint, zofiif-:A1.;i(:r:V *’

connnittcd by a public servant antics.
Petitioners 1 and 2 being ‘ V-.’s’ai’ci’ to have
abused and thmatcncd the Since the
jurisdictional police the complaint,
3 private co1:1piais*i’1′:V Therefore,
the judicial to the conclusion in
holding that i1;> to investigate into the
offence Let the investigation he
fifing the charge sheet if any a prior

” but not for initiation of criminal

pxbcccdfizhgfi’ a:.j{i’«–ufc_rVAéitVi*§*cstigat:ion. Therefore question cf obtaining

.p:ric:’1f sancfioixidoés not arise.

fixfiuxsc, the matcariai placed on records shows that

against Wham a case has bfiéll registered by

C.B.i. and investigation of case in RC;.22(A)/’ 20%–BLR ag;iL?ist;’fhe

petitioner and the Criminal Petition No.297()/2000 by

quashjng the said proceedings came to ”

but it does not mean that a false basil.” V

petitioners and others through “the 5:’ R’.v?.S§iaxma. It
is for the complainant to against the
petitioners. The by applying
judicious mind considering the
materials is required to file a
private police faiis to register the
case. Therefo re–,e:_’_th.e:’re* i of process of law in taking
by. aged issuance of summons to the
‘I Aiéwfor aeefienee punishable under Section 323,

504; IPC. The provisions of Section 482 Cr.P.C.

to be e:<e1ttisedA«j'cé1utious1y in the nearest of the rare cam. The

_ .. .. I ;by pefitioners does not show any p1'm1a' facze case

._ 'to4'e:§e2veise..ztAhe inherent powers of Section 482 Cr.P.(3. to quash the

we pmomdings against them in C.C.No.106/2002 by

Bangalore. Hence, the present petition filed under

/4 –. 9'

10

Section 482 Cr.P.C. is devoid of any merits and
dismissed. V’ V V ‘

10. Accordingly, this Criminal petition 1 ”

H1136