IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATEXKA; A' %
CIRCUYI' BENCH AT DHARW}_$:}.).Vv ' %
mmn THIS THE 213?::JDA4V:('(}F"aIU'1§;¥,._.:2@O$ '
BEFOREA V
THE HON'BLE MR.;;:u$2*1cE .5A WA:"; R}gHiVM
cR1z~¢11r~:ALfl1e>E'_r'i'i*:c:}:~:" 516.7399) 2009
BETWEEN:
SIi.Ve12kap§a,y_V 1.
S/0 ;D"efmsié2s,' V-- V
Age: Major, Q"eci"'Agzic'z11t11ii:,___ " _ "
R/0 Saragaotl, 3731: Pdudho}, & é
PE'I'I'I'iONER
(By Advocate)
V _ '? 3,11V1'-58311 Bhuaaraddi,
"'vAg¢= Masar-
0<.::F§:j Aigriculture 86 Business,
_ .. R'; 9.5 Laxmi 'I'ypre Traders,
, Shastri Ledge,
-Mudhoi-587 313,
Bist: Bagaikot.
" E Appashi,
S/0 Bhimappa Hosamani,
Major, Dec: Agiculture.
RIO. Laxmi 'I'ypIt=; Traders,
Near Shastti Lodge,
Pviuclhoi-58'? 3 13,
£3}?/..
mst: Bagalkot.
(By Sri. N. L. Batakurki, AdvoCaf;¢).A»V
This cum" ina} petition is fi1'gd§V48'Z-'B t;f:'C:€.?: {:&..j},:§aying'* "
to quash the order dated 83.2008'?.C.Nov.7i2{2&")'? }pa's.sea_by
the Special (Sessions) Jud.gé',~V..vBagé2k_m:;. the
court to take cvgnjzancc =i$su_c to the accused in
PC No.2/290?, and eye.
This petition c£'§'m" 'in 'g an this. day, the court
made the foklowing: V -' ..
T VfgR5Eg-W5
This "C. against the order dated
3.7.:)$§ass; :g1 :§.%re;§%;2/o?}"i3y the Spccia1(Sessio11s} Judge,
icy process against the respondents.
‘ ” 2. “T;t1_V._=53w:’n.¢_1tv:’i:er is iisted for admission aftxizr notice to
‘A « .
V is admitttéd and by consent it is taken up for
final qgxspgsal,
The petitioner lodged a report on 3.10.2667 at
filiflsdicfional police station allegug that 1″ respondent
Jagadish who owns iand atijacent to the iand of the
complainant bearing R.S.No.I55 of Somganvi village, Mucihoi
4
under the provision of section 203 Cr.P.C. Aggztkcved by it, the
comphinant is before this court.
5. The learned Caunsel for pei5itio;3n£*” submit
that PW.1 and PW.2 are consistent in _%L ba}1t
the nature of abusing by the;
attracts the provision of of {I’V3″‘% “‘€ \;v’%I.lV.’i’i(1A312; of
Atrocities) Act, ané hxxvag’ to
pmcecd against fix; fie “‘é¢Vou1<i furthezr allege
harassment by the trial Judge has not
cc$gf;1sflc':xv:=:V£Vi"'t';"'1:'»:-='_» ::é2*:?i§1é;i:it:t:_ icfizdered by the complaiuant and his
witnessczs. V .A
6. ‘ Hr:.€–J1’d ;.
V “T1:i£:i”‘€:§ompIai33Ja3:1t is undaubtcdly a man but the
V V in the complain’ t is for an ofience 1:/s 354
‘ ‘ section. 506 and 504 of IPC. So far $c:<:ti<m 504
an§iA5(36 of {PC is concerned, the iaearned trial Judge was right
" VT holding that the evidence tendered by both the witnesses does
not make out any cast: against the accused. As far as wtion
354 E30 is concerned, it is undoubtedly a mificzonceived action
5
of invoking a pmvision. which does net covcxj.–any of the
allegations made in the complaint. Regaréing: of
section 3(n(x) of SC/ST Act, the statengén: the
compiainanf. in the complaint
given by him before the Conn. ‘
\/aeadifi In the that accused
had thmatcneci :43 c€h.appa1 in his evidence
he exaggeratcei the vgxféiggl . Was actually assaulted
with a these facters, it does not infuse
confitizéfice fo’Va£:ic§§pt’.it §1’sV.’suficicnt material to proceed against
$16 a¢cu§eé.g ” ‘I’h’é order undoubtedly is falling ujs 203
apgd thé:””‘1earned Magistrate has exezcised discretion
vestéd. in exercise ofjuxiscticfion conferred upen him. It
A vfiésaid that there is any illcgaiity. With regard to the
coiatfitizfioa of the complainant that the evidence hafi ta be
u * efiiamined again to see that it inculcatcé agaiast the accused, it
must bfi observed {hat it is not the scope sf section 4-82 or 39?
Cr.P.(1. for this court; fr} record a fincling of fact. Finding cf fact
has to be zecorded by the trial court.
3:? ,.
C/§?»~:;,»«~
9. Hence, no case is made out fQr§V.:§f’1’téfffe;’z’éxi::r§’by the
accused. Accordingly, cI’i1nin:a1H;;}e:B’;ti<)I3:' is'
:;3UDGE2_
Sub*