IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA T i' 'E
CIRCUIT BENCH AT DI-IARWAD '
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY oE.NcxrEMEEH,; 521¢;¢:9
BEFORE V V _ 1 E _
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICvE_"L.VNA'l§AifAN§ENKAIVEY
CRLIMINAL PET1T1oA1s:..1x§o._sa_31/2009,. _. 7
BETWEEN:
I.
PRATAP s1NGH.HANu.M:xNTH--S1NG
RAJAPUT, AG-ED"-ABC)UT 48 YEAREVV ' "
occ BUSINEESEJR/'o;'BANAsHAN1{ARI"'
BADAwANE,'_'AN'NI?QER.E.._ "_ _ '
TQ 1\IAVAL(§1'JNi3:f:'§DIS'T.
_ -- ...PETITIONE3R
(Ey Sri. LAXMA1~J TMAIxfT'A;.(§A1$i1'éa Sri. GR. TURAMANI,
ADVOCATEZS) - T.
1.; '
~ : MQHA'_1v-z2\}:A.t31:sMAN, S/O.MOHA1\/IMADALI KALYAL
' AGED ABOUT :34 YEARS
OCC:,___B'U,S:i'NESS, R/OBYADGI DIST HAVERI
RESPONDENT
THIS CRL.P Is FILED U/s.482 CR.P.C
ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO Q13As#I---.TI~iE__ _
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN c.c.NO'.132.,/':20O:I_f
(P.C.N0.09/2009) PENDING ON THE FILE OF' C'OURT_OF
CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) AND JMFC £;'YAD'GIT. AND' A__LS_Q_V'l"I-IE"'.
ABOVE CRIMINAL PETITION.
THIS PETITON COMING 'IoN1~.,EOE"O'RDERis'DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE EOLLowINxGI:.
The prayer made quashing the
entire proceeding.s<'iInt_'CC on the file of
the Court of y_i\/IF;C,y.Byadgi.
2. The _coiii:en_tion '«,of.VV__the_' learned Counsel for the
petitioner is that tithe complaint of the complainant
under section .I2QO'oi' Cr.P.wC, the Magistrate after recording
tsiworn" statement of theicomplainant by way of affidavit, he
process against to respondent. In the
instant caseiitfhe Court below has recorded by order dated
-I / 2 / 2009ii3~that the compiainant is absent and represented by
I*i~i:Iseab<:Iyocate and cognizance has been taken and directed to
"'iI,.._flregifster the complaint as a private complaint. The learned
La)
counsel submits that since the complainant was
before the Court, the Court would not have it
cognizance, which is contrary to S€CtiQi'l"2CO'Of'CI'._P!iCi it
3. In view of the Submissions thev_--v_petiti'or1er,--~.li'~
have gone through the order passedby the Courtariid it it
is also true that it is recorded by' 'Court bei'o'.*.*~that the
complainant was absent, taken. The
said action on thfif pa;-tof passing such
an order is co1jitra'ryg he has right
in making'"ai'pir'a}ter_vto::se't th'é""o'rd£er that itself is not relief
oriented. tilt it all litigation must be relief
oriented though.there'._aretee'hr1ica1 lapses (mandatory), but it
.~"iS__for toi°I'e--c.t.i5y the same. In View of the above
ciArCur'I§sta11_cVes:I-pass the following order.
ORDER
The oirder’ dated 11/ 2 / 2009 passed by the Magistrate,
it “:1”.4A”B3ifada.gi in'<P¢.C No. 9 / 2009 is set aside and the learned Judge
iisicziiirected to pass the order strictly in compliance of Section
200 Cr.P.C. Since the Petitioner has preferred thiHs_
this Court presume that he has aiready accepter'i:_.''thea.Vr1otice:' '
ordered by the Court beiow. Her1ce,v~–petit.i.oner
appear before the Court below by
27/11/2009 and the Court be1o»\r.r.:Vp'ha_ps tohvpaass age fi*~eéh'"o'rder " '
strictly in accordance with A__S.ectior1.–2f§U~of'Cr.P.C'.'
Accordingly, the petitiorl Consequentiy,
Misc. CrI.No.164§08;~'j:2:009:=.'doe:3~:*:no't :.Stii*viye.f« for consideration
and the same :
Accovrdirrgly petiti’or1:’ is ‘”c1-istposed .
Av Sd/.1
….. .. IUDGE
gab/xhrmb