High Court Karnataka High Court

S Nagaraj vs The State Of Karnataka By Frazer … on 11 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
S Nagaraj vs The State Of Karnataka By Frazer … on 11 March, 2008
Author: N.Ananda
 A5-5 % A

BEFORE}

 

1- S-Nagamj.     '
s/o. M.Sa1b1:n_-: Gg3wda'~ _ 
Aged.   '"' 

    ' ' 

flged' _

gs')

  ria:
Nofiffl,  Colony
% _J.J.R;Na'gar.= A 

  cg-13.


'" _ fiftxv 'I.g:te.Y.Shamanna
" aimut 34 

4. am 'makah1  *
.. Wjo. S.Namyanu
"Aged about 25 years

Petition;-.m3&4amr]a:

H'. 1 in  \...r.|"'u'5, uv""'n.u'""ni1'

Bangalore-560 0'71. ...Petit:ionera

(By M]-a.P.V.KitInr an. Associates, Advocates)



IIJ

AME.
$18.1.

1. The State of Karnataka
By FTBZOI' Town  Siifiafi
Fra2er'I'oWn  
Bangalore. 7

2. Smt.Rajcswari

W19. 

Aged about 23 years _

Ric. Sfida-.*".-..-'9. Laveut 

Behind Relief M:-.glic:alai' V V

B.VcnkaiamIidy11agEf *    v V
lBlock,   V'   _  _ _
Bansal0I~e-'1.1-    %    Respondent»

(By Sri _. ‘jtham. : VVHEIGP for R1: Sn’

T}’1ViK§«.fi.:ii’.’i\’5;’i-f’Lia’i’3’u{flfi”.»f}n”s§’.€:’!’final hea.”.’.:=g ~:..a.-. …ay. the «::..=….
madevthe follcwingt *
Annals

_…__.1

‘fifaycu as ac-ciiaau 6 ‘as

I ‘I1

tend’ for oifencea puxuanan’ Le

493-A. 506 rlw 34 we and sections 3 G5 4 ofthc

.. fiohibifion Act (for short, ‘the Act’) have filed this

A’ to quash Fimt lnfoxmafion Report. against

, J
M’ them. “” %

.__.. ,_.uo.;_ 2 ..

, un;mg:au.muE_ Rm;

9!

‘I.._……_.’I l”‘\_.-..__’I

n I’ 1….– 1.._…._…I , .r…., “‘

4. I nave uuluu l=u.lnl=I.l. Luuuuul nu

learni ed HGGP fbri~1-eapomient’.

E:

,………%*s 2 .;”.=. 4 saw * e -1′-*-‘~=–31 %-=–i ,

No.2 and petitioner Maia. of No.4.
The learned .C*o::un:ael perein axe
ms in we in no w
oonce;ned_’iia:.::’ti1E: and her husband.
The submit an omnibus complaint is
filed to simply harass them.

on of such. fiivoloua

— d- 1-:–InII any Iungfidl

‘ . ‘i’o’r- ‘fioiiki reijr on

Supreme court. mpomd in 2005 c7n’.L.J. 173:2

” wow qfflameshandothers Vs. sum qfThmI’lNadu).

4′ would ubmit First Information Report may be

in these circumstances, leamed Counsel for

n

quashed. V N 4A~9″‘”””” .

-IL

since investigation is at t’rnfesh6id.V fifiis ~ ..
its powers under section 432
contents of complaint This ”
complaint on their face or V
deletion. This Court of
complaint are inhemnflgf abound.

5. in igf Court in
Court has to accept
aveIIIig:nt5~ ‘on their face value, without any
addifioji View of recent tendency of

i1:”LQIic:ee1;in:_z.V kin of husband in matrimonial

” .hI.1_|_u.a.:a__ mg! Ofioer

‘iiaséTA€:.=’:”%*’*””‘-za3″m”:. cf *um”‘-

*.er.*”..%*.:-,mtt.h..e-t.-1.:t.!’-.<.-r

' 1.' n ' ' '' ':'..-u ::11 .p 'VVLGud-Lo .| .n_I;;
otnerwaac. Qi' auegauonakagaint pea 'rneri.

' in judgment reported in 2005 Crl.L.J. 1732 (in the

.. :a:».-_=-.;-.ee1«. ;a.n..d. gt_herg vg. sum: of Tamil Nadu), the

3iipru-smr: G7-ait qiiaaha nu…

W-* lnfir.-.-…-a-.h'…-.23 9-W-st 2.2-'-

…….. ,…*.-'.-.~.*'e.ti…

Eh

I

____…….:. ..:..5_..i.:..=l…u .-ml-' nan-n-nlninnnl
flgfllllfll. uullra .I.l.I.aIIVI' In VI-Illlrlil-I-'-'I-I–I .. _

E.

E:

5:

9.
E’.

E
=+

I
‘5
if
as?’
53;

E?

C4.-nI.=.I.flM1n.._;_g in’- V
that «.a-ac’—-. what has ‘–nu… ‘J9
maria appim ‘ 16 ‘D W” %%

5. for qua-bins “mt

“”” H . nl .ggg_1″___ngI_g maria
again’ at fr: tmie -‘-‘ii ‘ -L”
tendency as kit]: and kin of husband in

= aigpuamabetween husband and wife.

Sdlgfr

Judga