IN TIE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE-V A D.
DATED THIS my. 6"' DAY OF JUNE, 2008
BEFORE
THE HON'B1.}.? me, JUSTICE H.N. Naiémeam DAD " %
CRIMINAL PE'I'I'I'I()N}1\T<3. 3159/mus
BETWEEN :
annua------------:---
S1i.RAJVIRPRATAP SHARMA, ms] j
310.1»: 0 SHARMA DEPUTY CQMMADRLNT D '~
GENERAL HOME GUARDs& '~ '
Exo1?F1c1oDEPmYDI;£.EcTcR
CIVILIDEFENSE ' »
PRESENTLY B~ISFE,C'E_OR
GENERAL o1=.mLI"CE'
SOUT'HERN,RANGE _ D
MYSORE. . D PE'mI0NI:R
(By Sri. H P agbfo,»
cu-uumum.-4.
1 ={')R"$B;;.1P'E~iUIvIfiLR
'~ .SUPERi1'\.3?.T,EI\'33E§9JT or POLICE CENTRAL
BUREAU as INVESTIGA'I'I()N,
N036, V315,: .L;»xaY ROAD,
' . V BANGALORE.
~ xAS§£OK.NHARNAHALLI
' CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
"STANDING COUNSEL
- .V HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BANGALORE. RESPONDENTS 1
THIS CRL.P IS FILES U/S482 CR.P.C WITH A PRAYER TO
QUASH THE ORDER D’I’.31.3.06 PASSED BY THE S.J., 13’I’C–VII,
B’LORE, Di CRL.RP.NO.358f02 CO G TIE ORDER OF THE
;\\j,=\.-/
\/
‘.,,.
No. 2 – immediate superior officer of accused No. 1 and accused No. 3 5-
the advocate who appeaxed for flwm before this Com. The Trial
under the impugted order dateci 19.10.2002 rejected the complaigit
agam’ m accused N95. 2 and 3. am is, the 1*espc41d6:~.£s
ground that there is no material allegation and :5
implicate these respondents for the ofi”ég1§€s.V_ ai1eig”<;d aggiiiat
Aggicved by this order of the flour: 'a..cr'n;}§:1a1
revision petitien before the rexvisiojmicoané. mam
No. 35332002. The rm".-mug: C9uri 1iI;dé:f 'a;-czar dated
31.63.2006 dismissed 12»o:?.'§:5t_i.(€1»z1_:$n(i_"V'ti1e order of the
Trial Com. Hence this '
3. I*{ear§IV”‘E:i:”gizm£-11:3 lrjixzlzfitlxe pemsed the entire _
1)..
4. Sn”. Lee1«aci11’_’ar%,% 1¢a:::¢d”¢om{s;e;1 fix the petitioner contends that
the_ ‘made in the compiainant and also in the swam
iiwe we sufiicicnt to establish prima facic case
He further contends that both the Courts
conutxinedfit-éitfir in not taking ‘me consideration the relcvamt
‘ ” ehé ‘c4§znpiaint mad aiso in the sworn staiament and as such
‘:;+§e”a;§:’::.=:h.a.s iesuited ‘m failure of justice. In support of this contention
_is§p1aced on me following decisions.
r~…/
d/W
and circumstances. “Therefore the law laid down by the Courts in the
decisions nefcmed above have no application to are facts on hand.
instant case the $1231? is a cencurrent fading by boat the CGIIITS
-the wave is mported by mzéerial on re«c<x-'d- and-fliey am '
with law. 1 fmd no justifiable gonad to: imrfém
orders.
8. Far the reasons stated rejected.