High Court Karnataka High Court

Mr Thirunarayana vs Smt Kavitha on 15 January, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Mr Thirunarayana vs Smt Kavitha on 15 January, 2009
Author: N.Ananda
E-fiM%%flM%FOFfifl%Mfi%MM%@fifi

  

O
k
g
3
O
Q
x
Q
E
§
a
E
§
E
§
2
3
3
:
§
§

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAflORE

DATED THIS THE 15"*EmY OF JANUARY 2CO9O"_

BEFORE _._ u_,2
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANpAff.:

CRIMINAL pETITION.NO,2219/2OOéO '
C/WO   1 -. '

CRIMINAL PETITION NO;:13722O0§ _ O"V%O

IN CRL.P NO 2219 OF 2008*,
BETWEEN O

1 MR THIRUNARAYAQ' _ 1~
AGED ABOUT 28 ¥EARs.P;
s/O LATE MUKUNDANg v.u
NO 23,,§m_MAZN ROAO_*»}_ .
SHAMANNEgREDDY §AYOuT,'*"=w~
SARASWATHIjPURAM},ULSGQRH~
2 gMR"RAMEsH?KUMARj _
IAGED AOOu:'35*yEARs-
'8/O_LATE'MUKUNpAN_»

3 MR saivAsHANKAR£:
g~AOEO ABOUT 3O'¥EARs
~§ 3/O_RAMEsHmKUMAR

V_» PETITIONERS"2 & 3 ARE
'z"RzAT--uO_9O4,_3"B CROSS

~9T" A rfiaizx Rgflan
Is: BLOcK;;HRBR LAYOUT
BANaALORE+56o043

"'u,§ MR SATHISH KUMAR

* AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS
' S/O LATE MUKUNDAN

[35 MRS MALANI
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
W/O SATHISH KUMAR

6 MRS RANGANACHIARAMMA
MAJOR IN AGE
W/O MUKUNDAN

Q mmm 5: §s...«V'@Hav.1."arIaL\.\n...x,-.». " 'R



  

  fiflfifi CQU!

E
E
E
&
D
Em
@
§
Q
Q
x
Q
3
§
2
§
53::
D
§
3
@
D
E
Q
E
§
E
2
E
E
§s
3
§
2
3
J
E
2
§
E
i
2:
6
E
i"
3
i

u»...--was

PETITIONER NOS 4 ,5 & 6 ARE
R/AT NO 23,3"*MRIR ROAD
SHAMANNA REDDY LAYOUT
SARASWATHI PURAM, uLsOOR
BRRGRLORE~55OOO8

7 MRS SRIDEVI
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS .~~-
W/O RAVI KUMAR I
No.47, YERRANAPALYA
RRMRMURIRY NAGAR
ERNOALORE«5600I6 ", V. x '.""w'

=, » ..;.pEI:IIORERs

{BY SRI.M.T.NANAIA.H, RDvQCRIE'w,.,_EOR SRI_,AS§JANKARAPPA

ASSTS.) ,r._ ;~ w. *.

END :

 

SMT KRvITHA,,'I_ , V j; ,"»},V v
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 18' ,R." """
D/O MUNIRRERRAM:-- _, »_'~'q'_3
#29, 15? SQDRRE, MURPHY TOWN 1

ULSOQR,BANGALCR§j56GQO8 ~

1, .- ,'=hg_=_'a_~»' - ... RESPONDENT

(BY sRI.B-BRLRKRIsHNR;.RcGp FOR R.I
sRI.K.NARA¥RN,–ADvOcRIE. FOR R.2}

;”‘IHIS =cRIMIRRL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
sEcEIOR.432 cR;D,c’ PRAYING fHD QUASH ROI, FURTHER

PEOCEEDINIIR PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE R RDDL.

,,»c;M,M,_*MRYO=,HRLL, BANGALORE IN C.C.NO.2229é/O8
< RED DIEMIEE THE COMPLAINT.

IN ORE P RD 1137 OF 2008

z_REEwEE§?

_,57sHT”REIRRMRvRLLI
E,’RGEO’RBOuT 56 YEARS

RJAT NO.9o4, 3″‘B CROSS,

“”=n¢fl” A MAIN ROAD, I BLOCK,

HRBR LAYOUT, KALYAN NAGAR
BANGALORE”43

PETITIONER

(BY SRI.M.T.NENAIAH, ADVCCATE FOR SRI.SHANKARA?PA
ASSTS.)

… …….1..-….1 …u.. ~..-IJunI_,t.g’I’I'” nnnawenwnmn mauve Lwuiw wr wmmnmzm mew COUW” OF KARNATAKA H563’? Cflflfi? OF KARNATAKA fiififl QQMQ

:0″ Additional Chief Metropolitan Magietrate,

Mayohall, Bangalore.

2. They have filed these-petitioneftowquaehb

the proceeding pending thereinleih

3. The above Crihinel oroceeding was
initiated against: the ifiomplaint filed under

Section 200 Cr.P.C ey respondent Nof2~Kavitha.

petifiioner;ll_iearned: Government Advocate for
respondent ‘ Noll ” end’ learned counsel for
respondehtVNol2g

&”‘d”5;”:II have been taken through complaint,

‘sworn statement, statement of the saitnesses and

the ifipudned order.

6. The learned counsel for contesting

V'”parties have made eubmissions touching upon

merits of the case. These petitions are filed
under section 482 Cr.P.C. therefore, there is no

need for this Court to go into the merits of case_

ax ~. _a i, -‘ ‘rt

Wffiafifi MWH Q03.

W M __,… W… VHWM mmmuaiflafifliiwfi amwn muum Ur KARN&.TAKA Hffifi CQURT Q5′ MARNATAKA HIGH Cfflfifi? OF

9. It is true that learned Magistrate need

not write a detailed order for issuing *§rocess

under Section 204 Cr.P.C. But at the sake t{aé;_

the .learned Ngistrate shail_ bear djfi mind} fihatfi

issuance of process to accused in criminal case
is a serious matter and he has to form an opinion

that there are grounds to proceed against accused

10. In the case on hand the impugned order
discloses tfi?ilearned}Magistrate has not applied
his mind to the fact: of the case and the learned
‘Magistrate; 53$” not” considered the nature of
alledation eade in the complaint with reference

to each of the accused. This was necessary in

View xof thew tact not only the husband and

.’parentsrin4law’ of respondent No.2 but also

*.f3;end53_aé5′ other distant relatives of the

husband are implicated by respondent No.2.

‘All. In View of the foregoing discussion and

‘”,,_for reasons stated herein, I pass the following

order: fi£~ iiwwéhtleglg

2 Emmmsm ‘¥f>.m.Wfl’vl$I..!h’sl\Sk M M-.. ..