Lflldlhflld
IN TI-IE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14"" DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2009
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE SUBRASH__Ei.AO1"'--' L.
CRL.P. No.3273/zoos A/W. cEL_.1é. NO;'32--'?2;/'izoiag " "
BETWEEN:
CHIKKABBAYYAPPA ALIAS ISHWAEAPPA '-
S/O. LATE CHIKKABBAYYAPPA ' _' _
AGED 61 YEARS ..
R/AT HEEBAL VILLAGE «. '
Sm CROSS, S S A ROAD ' 'A _
KASABA HOBLI, V 'V ..
BANGALORE NOR'1"1~.1 TA;LUK'.- _ - * PETITIONER
cRL.P.3273/2008
AGED
I MAIN, SHIVAS21IAN'KARA'~BLOCK
HE13SAL.Av1--:LLAG1:;j"-H A.F'ARA.M POST
BANGALORE NORTII;AL'UK."«. PETITIONER
" " 2 IN cRL.P.3274/2008
M VS./'O ;§:ij:JiA:;ASA1?PA
_ (By..Sf;1'V: M S ADV. }
1 STATE'"OF KARNATAKA
BY NEEBAL POLICE STATION
A HEBBAL
'BANGALORE M 580024
MVISWANATH
S/O M MARULASIDDAPPA
HINDU, AGED 45 YERS
R/AT NO.426/26,
2ND MAEN ROAD, MARUTHI LAYOUT
R M V II STAGE
BANGALORE.
3 SHAIK ASHWAQ
S / O. LATE AMMERJAN
AGED 57 YEARS
R/AT NO. 16 STANDACE ROAD
FRAZER TOWN
BANGALORE » 560005. I'
(By Sri : G.I3.S1NGH, SPP FOR R1. 0 _
SR1 O.SHfVARAM BHAT, ADV. FOR R.2&=3]
THESE PETmONS_ ARE EILED U/S.482--C_R.AP5.C BY THE
ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONEIR, PRAYINC 'THAT THIS
HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED""--TO'ISET ASIDE/QUASH
THE COMPLAINT FILED BY'd~RES'PONDEN"'£'S_2 AND 3 AGAINST
HIM IN P.C.R.NO3I17079" "81 A7080/200? " RESPECTIVELY ON
THE FILE OF' TjHE.A'DDL_. (}.1\!£fM';«.B;'--\fJGA;;ORE CITY, AND THE
ORDER DT. ,.7.,1I:;;07_i ~PASS-ED THE SAID COMPLAINTS
REPERRING" TI§I.E ._T'O. .]7I'H*E -1 ST RESPONDENT FOR
INVESTiGAT10.N"Ai':»lD R_EPORT--.
THESE PETI*I?I§)I\I1SI'~COM;I1\IC ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE«CODR'T.VMADE'TH'E POLLOWINC:
ORDER
‘V nave Sought for quashing of the proceedings in
2007 and 17080/2007 pending on the file Of
7..«._”;43’§1ditiOI’1a1’i~ChieI’ Metropoiitan Magistrate, Bangalore and Order
1 1.2007.
2. Respondent NOS.2 and 3 have filed a private Complaint
” under Section 200 Of CI’.P.C. for an offence punishabie under
Sections 420 and 307 Of the IPC.
(COMMON IN..BQTH’C}’1SES)” d
-3-
3. The learned Magistrate considering the nature of the
complaint found that, the matter required to be investigated by
the Police and referred the matter to the jurisdictional police
under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. It appears thlaty, the
jurisdictional police on investigation has filed for
the offence punishable under Section 420 of the orilyl l ” ll
4. The dispute between the pa.;ti__es
agreement of sale and it is purely a Zprivjate’ivdisputer’anld:l”t*iotl1ing
to do with the public policy orllanyt offence society’
Now parties have filed joint mem:o”stating theniimatter has
been amicably settleld “between the ‘parties.
Learneox”Counseyl”appearing for the complainants
submitted “tha*t.v complainants do not want to prosecute the
_ mattyerlfurther.
l’ 5. lC:onlp«1_ainants Sri M.Viswanath and Shaik Ashwaq both
ar.e’¥p_reselr1:t:« .before”the Court. Petitioners namely Mshankarappa
_ in C’rirI1irial.VdA1:5etitio11 No.3274/2008 and Sri Chikkabbayyappa
ll.’4″-Lalias Ishwarappa in connected Criminal Petition No.3273/2008
. isda1.so5present. before the Court.
-4-
7. Considering the nature of allegation in the private
complaint and also joint memo filed by the parties pa-‘n__d also
placing the submission of the learned counsel Sri
Bhat appearing for the complainants on record,-ines»e::paeti£ions’»
are allowed. Proceedings in P.C.R.Nos’;’17.079{fO”ffiand i’
stand quashed.
*AP/ —