High Court Karnataka High Court

Santhosh Kumar vs Mangalore North Police Station on 11 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Santhosh Kumar vs Mangalore North Police Station on 11 March, 2008
Author: N.Ananda
BEFORE': n % Q _

THE HON'BLE MR.JU\STl(3Ev_hi. ANA'..*$£3f!«.\. _ ° j 

Mr. Santhoah Kumar
Aged about 
3,19,    

R/a: Re-d1Vm 

ll '
maagaioa-.-.3 .

 Petitioner

,...--r=%-.....«~« 

(33? fifi r".i'-'.:'a+i;i;'-fix':
I. Mangalom' Ndxth  Station
. _ Repthy State Public Prosecutor
_ V High  of Kin-natalm
   ..... .. V

% «Q;  _ A R.Naik

"'fli9. 5{.'Ew'iahai'n':fi'u flaik
Rm:  Knmbar Road
  Viilagc, "Patii 'Post
.. Mangalome.  Respondents

” ” H;Ha._um;utLaa_myapm HGGP for R1: R2-Served)

9..-=.=-.~.i.-.a: –«am:-. is 5.191.. 1-_-xi-.-..r Ll;§|L3fi;_D.l.1, 432 Cr.P.C.,

EU”

paying to quash the entire complaint in P.C.No. 1512000 on

the iiie of C.J.M., :’viai1ga.}u-is and all f-.:.”J:e:~ p:W.m-.$.i:=.g3

intheabovecaaeasetc.

Pd?

ccfinififi an far .I.I.un: uea…..5’*- _

Court made the following:

.11.: pF..1_i._’. er arraved

P.G.Nc.fi.-‘5,’2G’u’G. @-elm 2%.-i%e

sections 120-3, 417, 46a,~4?c1er;w 34 & cf

mm}. ChiefJud1c1al’ ‘ ‘ has e

petition to

= am-;r accused viz accused No.1-

accused No.2-B.M.lsmaI1,’ alleging

The learned Magistrate refiamed complaint

.’ police for investigation under section 156(3)

g_ At that stage, accused No.2-B.M.leunai1 had

~ t…a.s c«_–.-_-«: in No.3688_l2OD0.

L. -1]- ‘

av «<35/W" *

In

by accused No.2 in P.C.iio.15i:gi'i'u ~

In 1| '

proceedings in P.C.No.15[2000 ' it 'k

alleged cheque -bearing

out' India. Manaalom. for a sum ¢:r1§a.4.oO;G9(i§/~%ia
is liable to be as other
documta said__to alleged to

11.-;vt_e hag; accused are

mafia-u%._ .-35*.”-‘.5.’fi~~.-9. ‘ to mmn!i_s«.s

_..__… _.

quash m”‘–“….-……….,u..”*-‘-‘

4; “At in neccsIary- to state Grnnmal’ ‘

. .,4..ifi”__. was filed by accused No.2–B.M.lamail

‘ “Ar; P.C.!'{cs.415};”.{.”.)9. Mt.-.1′ éiil LIE -said.

aiiiy’au’-i as aisraau-t’. Nc.3 in

P.c.Na;%1a;2ooP ham filed to quash the

.. oqmpiaint.

1’»

A.I_.’…. .-

opinion, peiifi0f!.€f’ éafifict uua pei’i’r._.’i:–‘:%._ru

complaint insofar as it relates pflner ” =

againat petitioner and other

the one relating to cheque ho ” L.
bar to continue impugned ” I 1

6. Therefore, iievoici of merits.

sun