High Court Karnataka High Court

Rajkumar S/O Tukaram Gouli vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 6 August, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Rajkumar S/O Tukaram Gouli vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its … on 6 August, 2008
Author: V Jagannathan
THE I~IIGH COURT 012 KARNATAKA  

CIRCUIT BENCH, GULBARGA

Dated the 6&1 day of August 2008. ~  ii},  TI «

:B3FoRE5

mm I-ION'BLE MR.JUS'1'ICE  .\f.JA(?: A"1\iII¢A*£'i~{§';i\IV   %

CRIMINAL PETITION a§§;«§27'2Q12Gc$T_%  

BETWEEN :

1.

  Distilaidar.  

Rajkumar, .~    Vv

S/o.'I'ukaram  _ 1: 
Aged bout 48 ye£:rs,;1';jL'  ~. 5
00c:Ag'icuIt11?"c,  V V" " "
RNVW@flm@@&..
Post Noubasd," " ._lj "j

Tq: Bidar,¥__ _   '
District BiCiar.«.

  %%%%% 
" ;Ra"ghave11dt.'a Colony,

Aged ab9ut% 50% Wars,
Busina$g?~=, Bigiar city,

% " '  S-[3€>..Btnm.   Laéui,
 .Ag;edVabout 58 ywrs,

Occ~:VA'gz*iCuitu1'e,

  R'/0.?J'1Bagc, Kolar-B,
 Dist:Bidar.

   Rodda Veershetty, Advocate.)

. . ficfitioncrs



AND:

1. The State of Karnataka,
Represented by its Public Prosecutor,
High Court (Police, Janwada Poiice J »
Station, Bidar District, Bidar), ' 
High Court, Bangalore.

2. Ganapatrao,

S] oflcclkantappa Wadge,

Aged about 54 years,   

Oc<::Nil, r/ o.Vil1age Mua1I1t;)1;~J. 

'I'q:Aurad (B), Dist:Bidar. ' % -- *
Now I'/a.Udgir,Shivaji S.:jc':i;3ty,5""'  .  . 
Near Bus Stand,     
Udgir.    V  V' V   V ...Respon<:1e.nts
(By Sri    I~EC(;'§f')

Criminal E?et;itio1*_1_   Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.
praying to qua.sh.._the er1tir$'--;:y1't1acé:aédiI1gs of tha criminal case in
Crime: No.21/f2008L"--«pf'v PoI_'1_oc._ Jaflawada Police Smtion, Tq. and
Dist; Bidar da1:ed%%23.2.2oos and etc.,.

   for admission this day, tha court

made thy:     ~-- ..

ORDER

counsel for petitionars, Sri Rodda

* warned Government Pkzader for State, Sri

K Bahashctty.

%%?rms crimillal pctitien is mad under Section 432 of Cr.PC.

The petitioners have prayed for quashing of pmcwdings in Crime

No.21/2Q08 and ofienoes alleged against the p6titi{}Il6I”3 and othm’

if 2

-3-

accused are und&* Sections 465, 453, 471, 419, 418, 420, ,4$,f?_and

506 marl with Sectian 34 of {PC and as per the _

the complainant was assmw of salegf’

complainant and therefore the ccmplahzaiat ‘

sums on different dates and in aI1 ta = >

version, Rs.7,99, 100/ – has beef; paid in
the presence of one Balirama Patil
When the complainant the sale
. deed in his favo1J1’,;.1:é stands ‘m the
name of _ According to tin
complainant, for land being said to
him andflagfmenfidizfi that the power of attorney,
ta have been given in thck
favour, Ia and alleging that the aocumd persons
complainant and mfused to pay the

he suught fer naeoessary acticm being taken

,, . __ pexsans.

sud’ on such cempiaint, the saw was registered in the

crime number by Jmwada Police for the c&nces

mentionw as above.

,./’

ta-« The learned 00113561 for petitioners submmed

complaint filed was a false one and no acfion has A3:1%

respect of complaint iodged afiinst the cor11p}aiImnt.~–» :

case, the question of proceedings with ‘

in Crime No.21/2008 will not Q11

Govemxnent Pleader for State have
secured hail from the trial 1:113 of chargesheet
and as such, at this stagg, this’ intcr’h’e in the

proceedings, that ~. Y’: ‘

53. Having giibfiission made by learned
counsel for parties;, I .tViae’=’that this is not 5 stage for this
court to irztegfaxfe ‘flit pending befere the trial

me Apes: Court has held that intetfe.-xence by

Cr.P.C. will have to be only ‘m ratmt of

cases of Smt Chand Dhawan Vs Jawaazar La}

in AIR 1992 s.c.13’79, the Apex Court has

I = A. 1 £1133:

_4″‘ High Court can exercise its mhcren’. . t jurisdictkm of

a criminal fading only when thc

‘allegations made in the oomplaént do not cmastimtc an
ofience or that the exevcisc of the power is mecessary
either to prevent the abuse ef the process of the court or
othcrwisc to wait the ends of justice. No inflcxihh
guidelines or rigd formula cm: be set out and it

%

””‘ 4