- } _
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED TH1S THE ISTDAY OF SEPTEMBER 2009
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH B.ADI.._'
CRIMINAL PETITION N0.2093/2099,) O4]
BETWEEN:
Vivek Raj,
Age 27 years,
S/0 Rajendra,
R/at House No.I--24/1,
Kuluru Kavoor Road, _
Mangalore Taiuk. ' V ~ »_.'.".«.PETITIONER
(By Sri.P.Karunakar,AdV.) A
AND: TTTT 'R
2 The Station Hous¢',"@f:i»c¢%;Ee__ " R
Nanjanagudu PO1iC6'vS[C¥_ti011_, '
NanjanagOudu,'vMysQre;, ' '
_ DnééiijithV]{amachdudr.i.,. *
V' glears,
. S/'e1P'1'--ab111i'Ra1n,
._ Bhé1'1'aniN§Vi'éya,
A Chanappae-Layout,
H'ous:1--ng Main Road,
Nanjanagudu Town, Disirict. .. RESPONDENTS
xxé’
(E_y.S§i’.”R.s.Bhat, HCGP. FOIR1 &
__’j_Sri..G’.’Ba1akrishna Shastry, Adv. for R2)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to
quash the FIR No.57/2009 dated 20.02.2009 registered in Nanjanagudu
Rural Police Station, Mysore District in so far has the petitioner
concerned.
This Petition coming on for admission this day, the
“the
following: _f “.1. =
Petitioner is the accused No.1 in Crime No.57/2009 regi’st:ered::on
22.2.2009 by the Nanjanagudu Ruj*al~..Po1ice,-.. Mysoreldvi[s’:ri.C§ for land”
offence punishabie under Sections 341,50-i1:,_ read Section 34 of
IPC.
2. Responderit”~l§lc.2 hadi before the Police
interalia alleging tifiat; “there .’a–..1nor;ey” transaction between the
cornplainarit and onf25.l.2009 at about 4 p..m., the
accused abusedlthe complainlantiliand the petitioner herein held the
complainan’t and acc:i.s_e’dSNoi’fZ W Rajendra threatened that he would kiii
¥.the’Acet13plainant._’On the basis of the complaint, a case is registered for an
offence’.puini’sh’ah_l_eftinder Sections 34}, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of
HS IPC.
, _3″.””:_Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that, the
…petitioner was not at all in India as on the date of alleged incident. He
._submitted that, he had left to United States and during that period, he was
concerned, the proceedings required to be quashed.
in U.S.A. To show the same, he has produced the xerox copy of the
Passport.
4. This aspect of the matter is not disputed by the 1earrietdV”Cl’oa_insel
for the complainant. However, it is submitted that, the furthertesitatenierit .
of the complainant was recorded and in’mthe’.furthe17«stlaternent} the
complainant has alleged that the date of incideratigs not on 25:
it is on 25.12.2008 and based on”‘–szrhilch, he”-tried. the’
proceedings insofar as this petitioner tsl¢orl¢¢rnVéat_
5. Complainantcategorically::mal’ alleged incident in terms of the complaint
if».theftpestitionerf”tltas’*.”n0t in India, his presence in the house of the
,_ and holding him is totally misconceived and
_4ti1e_docunierit’is public document and this cannot be disputed and if the
are continued against this petitioner, it amounts to abuse of
..__process of court. In the circumstances, insofar as this petitioner is
Accordingiy, this petition is allowed. The proceedings in
pursuance of Crime No.57/2009 stand quashed insofar as this petitioner is
concerned. Consequently, Misc.Cr1.36i9/2009 stands dis.rm’sse_d;–su