G S Venkata Rao vs A R Badrinarayan on 3 July, 2008

 

.1-

IN THE HIGH coum or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY or JULY 2003  "
BEFORE   
THE I~ION'BLE MR.JUS'l'ICE SUBHASH    if./.11'  %

cmmmmhnmmummmnnaJm4nuflis¢ ,}
BETWEEN:     '

G. S. Venkata Rao

Aged 63 years,

S/o. late Subba Rao,

Guddcthota Village,  , _ 

Iwmmnm¢, ,'=wV.QNxf
CHIKMAGALUR DIS'I'RICl'~5T.1Q.3_ L. ' - A  '   .,:j_'PE'I'I'TIONER

(By Sri. Raghu PI-'BW      V' 

A. R. 

S/o. Rama Rae; '
C833,

A . .
Sgtlradashystrcct,  » =  .-- V 
SRINGERI---$77139. "   " .. RESPONDENT

(By. Sn. zsw%%Kmi.ar,%Adv.)

Petition is filed under Section 397
Cr.P.C.= praying set aside the ixnpumcd order passed by the

Kjoppa-,. AP.C.R.No.15/02 and the order Dt.30.06.06
inf C1′-I1,.RP No.87/04 on the file of the P.O., F’I’C~II,

made the following:

“Revision Petition coming on for Hearing this day. the

-2-

Q}
A private complaint was flied by the respondent foi’=,an

ofience punishable under Section 420 iPC.. The K
referred the matter to the Police under Section M

of Criminal Procedure. On investigation; ihe ax”:

‘B’ report. The trial court the

report was not protested by the a
Revision Pefition int:-rralia, stgting pop ‘::¢:ItVEIi1e the
protest objection md in his He
pointed out that, the Eolioe iszgature’ on the
cheque varies fiom f the age 33]’ V1′ and if that is so,
a prinuzfacsgc ~~ 3 oo -seer.

2. Leamaj R’.o’.o’ti11.¢.’.«Veij».jf::~1:_?” petitioner submitted that the
Revisional toga’ ‘;iot’ju.e’11fied.’ , as there is no protest awn’ st

fl’B’orc1>o’ V” complaint is fikd only to harass

the 2 ” R ~ . V V _}~

.q 3. fie the record that, though oppoxtunity was

. petitioner, he could not avail it and in his absence,
accepted. Now the Revisional Court has only
the matter to m-consider the same. In my opinion,
LL4″”w:t»’}ie.VRevisional Court has given one mom opportunity m the

“respondent to file a protest application and make out a prima

-3.

facie case. Since the trial court has proceeded without “any

material, the Revisiona} Court in the interest of justice;

passed an order and that too, subject to paymcnt__.ۤf .

Rs.5,000/ -.

4. In the light of the above, this

interference by this Court, no ortpxvejmliee
caused to the petitioner. It isgnadc has
to consider the protest me11t<5'*;$r– filed by the
respondent and only .1-33¢ prima facie
case, the trial If the matefial
produced by it is at liberty to

passappmpxaatg 1 . t