¥N THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY 01:'
BEFORE _
THE HOPPBLE MR.JUS;§1UF?"P§,.:Ai§';'3N'l3fi A'
cRL.P.No.5:32s ofigdea *
BETWEEN:
1. I). xoT1REDDY " _
S/O LATE' LAKSHMA vREI__)DY = ; .
AGED A£§OU'§' 4;; ~ «V
FLA'§*1VNc;.'3,8-29;,xflfinooa '
V'PR¢ANK¥ « .. .
181' CRQSS, azefffi MAIN .
1sABAsHi*JA.2{AGAR_ 1. ' '
BANGALORE-}56G~.O80V~"
2. _ 1:) men: REEBY
V, sgo LATEVLAKSVHMA mum
Arms) ABOUfi""36 YEARS
«. H Hxamiavour, 1ST BLOCK
_ KALYANVIHEAGAR
. aAj~a,GA.'mRE--5ao 043
3. 515 ANURADHA
..w,{0 D 1:01': REDDY
man 45 YEARS
A' FLAT NCE18-«A H FLOOR
* PRANAV APARTMENTS
13'1" CROSS, 9"' MAIN
OPP'. BEA MINI-MARKE'I'
SADASHIVANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 080
Arm.
4. GOPAL mom
s/0 LATE KOTI LINGA REDEDY
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/A: Nc>.391,13'rH moss
SADASHIVANAGAR V '
BANGALORE660 080
5. DR. IANIL KUMAR REDS}-'.._V
s/0 RADHAKRISHNA REED?
AGEET) ABOUT 50 YEARS _ ,. '
NO. 16/ 1 191, KASTUR1Di'?;VE* NA(f+2'\..If'\'
NELLORE624 OOi. f V
ANDHRA PRADESH '
5. SMT. C RAJITHA V '
W'/O DR; 1 ,~'j;~;1~11;., KEJMAR REDBY'
AGED Azfsoutms' '.-'.'.'1:'s.'.1._kR«'_:'> ,_
NO. 161 1191:, KAs'.mR:D':§:v1 NAGAR
1~;iELL.Qie.:345*2r:;.oo»1.'
ANSI-IR}'--.'g P1§zA[§ 2i:s;~:.__» »
. ...PETi'r:oNERs
(BY 3121 N I; "BATA.KQRF:.E_,s A£§V.,-ABSENT')
OFKARNATAKA
BY THE WLICE OF
3:213 €3EPET-- §?f}§;:£CE STATION
BELLARY ~ _
'e~zARAsir.1£iA REDDY
% gS[G;--SANJEEVA RE{)l§)Y
'AGEDAABOUT 47 YEARS
-- occ; RETIRED EMPLOYEE
V' R13. ARAVINDA NAGAR
NEAR 1:2.'r.c3. BUS~SI'AI'~lD
u NELLORE
ANBHRA PRADESH RESPQNDENTS
rs ~
"'1
(BY SR1 ANAND K NAVALGIMATH, HCGP I_'«j@R'.;g.:;; : "
CRL.P FILED U/3.482 cR.p.c BY 'r;--1E§"~1A£:i?ei::aTE _,
FOR THE PETITIONERS PRAYzNG_TQ..QUASH "1*zaI;E E:mRia
PRCCEEDINGS IN CR. NO.210/98 OF' BRLr_c2~:::*1a:fr-.E>QL1g;E;
S'I'ATi(.)N, BELLARY, REGI). F01?-.'I'I~i.ET ~i)F}<'£+Z'.E\¥Cf3E Iii:-,r;'m:J{t:"»:rs:A<:+ (')N':'i'PiE
FILE 0:' LEARNEE ADDL. civ1L_JU9c3ra: (JR.'DN=.«.)_'8:;..e.J§5FC, - '
BELLARY.
CRLP COMING 0':a.V_FoR:'Ab:§§:SéiAQN T§i'I's' BAY, THE
COURT MADE 'THE P'OLI_.(}WiNG:{_ 1 " "
0
There; 'the petitioner. This
pefititmf the F'I?:? registered against thc
£01' ofi'§fic:év«;:§mfishabEe under Secs. 420, 465,
468, 199 Rfw
---FIR was lodged by second respondent
ailehgihg viaefificners herein had mmived a sum 01′
}2s.6;4¥75»,i{}{}£I§V/fi~ from the fixst informant assmixrig him to stall
site; mfiasufing $0,000 Sqfl. in KMC gartiem layout at
– Afier zeccipt of amount petitioners had
” “iééucd a receipt to the firs’: informant and did not execute
sale dead. 01:: vezificaticn, fin-at informant found that
p; . §’%4.,..%.,L V &
petitioners had received lakhs and Iakhs
diflcmnt persons by making false _§1§* . fi.’£l1’V1′.Sf(§’iF.V1Zi3,fV3 ” V’
siics. The first informant visitsd
that there was no 1~e{emnce7in__ the “r=r::fiic.rdsTw1:;1i:a§;v.t1::§:y.3 had.-. ‘
received a sum of iS2s.6,45,000/ uthc:”f’1x*sV1::T_i;}”fox9j11ant and
zveccipt issued by Graig. ‘éiocuncwnt.
3. It;’is”e;;;§I1feI;Jide£iL that they hat} no
txansactioniéé infezmant. The FIR
was iaigéé “£a=Vi%.Jvfrc<§}§§;VVV:~.11'ge,'$a:1cc..
4. ‘m “filed tmdcr Sec. 432 Cr.P.C to
< FIR, will have to accept the avezrmsnts
'o,fVfl15t[fir$¥;~ on their face value. 011 consideration
bi' of the first infoxmant, that: txiai Court has
j helé ' th:ai,1:h ex avermcnts made in complaint would constitute
fl5it'3' 'Qg('fIiSfi'S against petitioncm. At this stage, it is not
— to held that awzmaent sf first infoxmant are absmti
‘ii)i’*T highly improbable. In the cixtcumsfanceg, I do not find
3 .1″
‘flmcg ‘
any gmunds to quash the FIR. T}16I’€f0I’f£’,:’-
dismissed at the stage ofadmissio1;.,,,.
BN3