IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST 2010
BEFORE _ V
THE HONBLE MRJUSTICE SUB}-{ASH B;.;:§;DI4::i '
CRIMINAL PETITION 1§Io;'Gs4/2cfihG'_,'"«" f' E 4
BETWEEN: I I V '
Parameshwara Naika
S / 0 Narna. Naika
Aged about years
Resident of Almbuda of ' __ ., _
Peraje Village, Ban'Ewa.1Ta.l'ukg. '
D.K.District--5'/4 211. '
" V: -;.j'V1g15E'.1'1T1oNER
(By Sri.G.Ravishg1h1§§f'Shé1stry;.';3\dv.):" V.
1. State 0_f'Kafi1ataka_ .. '
By Sub «Inspector of « .PO1iee
Vittal 'Police Statio I1.-
Vittal. D"'.~K.Dist'rict'=_ ' '
_£§1N--57402"0».
'
* : E3[O'-vL3te*'Ehyampa Gowda
"-'.Aged'2;.:3 yeacfis
A Deppoiiflduse, Peraje Village
""'Bar.*J;'Wa1«*'Taluk, D.K.District
PIN--§742 1 1 .. RESPONDENTS
S’1:i,Satish R Girji, HCGP for R1
_’ ‘R2’–is”served)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying to quash the proceedings initiated by the Respondent–1
in FIR No.171/09 dated 30.11.2009 on the file of the ACJ
{JR.DVN) & JMFC court, Bantwal and this Criminal Petition be
allowed with costs throughout. 1
This petition coming on for admission this
made the following:
ORDEE
Petitioner has sought for_~quashing'”of the
Crime N0_171/2009 dated 30th””N:o’vember” registered bf V
the Vittal Police, D.K.’i§istrict’;d’mf(51’*:ljflldé’-.. Qff€I10é’S “liuflishablfi
under Sections 464, 465, 34 of IPC.
2. Res«povndetit.’_ c.gir:;;§iaittaht alleged that, the
accused document created an entry
in his lavotn’ the grantee of the land in the
year 1900 and” mutation was effected in
V. No.D§CDR.: 164/P8009801 and there is no grant..
0 V Counsel for the petitioner submits that,
bundle of false statements, as the detail facts
are n~ot’;stated and material avennents are not made. He
reierred to W.P.No.30920/2000 filed by the father of the
‘second respondent wherein he had sought for a direction to
make an enquiry in respect of very mutation i.e., DCDR
164/1980–8l. However, this court after hearing found that the
matter is purely civil in nature and dismissed the writ petition.
The allegation that the Assistant Commissioner and the
Deputy Commissioner have confirmed his grant is also as
the detail enquiry was held under Rule 25 of the
Rules as regard to the grant made in favour
and others and the Deputy
9.8.2004 has found that the p’etitione’r_:vis alsopia.
ordered for podi of the land _order.l.has;’.}/reeomel finalr
He submitted that, wherrthe been resolved on
the revenue side and father of the
second the complaint is
filed as an after-ijthouglit petitioner.
The eomplaint relates to the same
mutation entry, the subject matter of the writ
peti»tion.i’~ Thisnflourt has observed that the matter is purely
»oivi1._ i1:,Vvnatuareeand has dismissed the writ petition. Further,
lllthehr-Deputy.__Commissioner’s order under Rule 25 of the Land
Grant Rules; also reveals that, the petitioner is a grantee. if
that isdlso, prima facie if there is any dispute, it has to be
resolved before the civil court not in private complaint. in my
id ‘opinion, the proceedings are misconceived. 3,’
x3 ‘
Accordingiy, the petition is allowed. The proceedings in
Crime N0. 1 71 /2009 stand quashed.
KNM/–