Between;
§x}
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
CIRCUIT ggwca AT DHARWAD
Datfzd this the mm day 9:" Februa3f§f"2G{}_€3f----:: _
THE HON'BLE MR JUsTI<:'z:- HLII',£It%;a,f:é;flc3A.
cm. P NQ.7;":315/2{)<}8.,_.C/W; .g:;::,.:3 rs:ci%.;=s¥:g'?;ig;06a .
CR5. P Nc:»75S§':-5::/'zzoos "
smei EASAVRAJ saamrég 'é.z:,m_.~.1§é--- . V "
AG3E}v..5sE5:C§;i:}'?6f3 YE§éaiés._ 5
{ECG ..I}E';§Ti"E}"?"§7:,- MA'E'JAGEf~2 ':3a1...{»:eE':*;RE1:)3
awe Az_g::c:.._aE1>z;*n*--..:x.a::*g:*~:;~;c;E12 SB}
R';§'0_i§«ANC3 369 EIND MAW, I E'>§,OCK
SR9 'STAGE MANJUNALLI NAGAFE
V' ' vE¥'§;%;I§§{}Aj'§;Q.£?F, :0
s:.{§:"f':::'5RAtxz; EH
max: ABOUT 34 YEARS
'~ $1.23 ;<: RAGHUNATH RAG
Gee MANAGER 38:
ago K C ROAD
NEAR ENEKIOSLE QFFECE
BELLARY 583161
AW,
4. SHE} A S VENKTESH RAG
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
OCC MANAGER SE1 {RETIRED}
R/O 614 BLOCK? SKYLJNE s\E""i'S
CHANDRA LAYOUT
BANGALGRE 72 PET'ITI='Cf}NERS
(By Sri ; F V PATEL, ADV)
And
SHE] YELLAPPA
S/O BASAPPA YALAVAGE
occ BUSINESS
R/0 sag CGLONY
STATION Rom
BAI)AMI,'FQ BADAh.ȤI_
DIS'I';BADAMI " jé ,,:,REsPGN"DENT
(By szri : V Aim
CR£~.P . FILE3l3_ " 482 SF CfR.P.C BY THE?
ADVQCATE FOf§'7"I'H'EI« PETITIONERS ¥3'RPsYIN(} THAT THIS
H.£3'-§\f'8LE CC}U'RT MAY BE PLEASED TC! SET ASIDE'; THE
ORSER 3/'iTE§ 28';4.200é PASSED BY THE JMFCL, BADAME
» iii; PRl'!;£T§§--._CGMPLAiNT No.2?/2004 (cc No.3i21,l20C¥6)
* ".£;:~IB j"1.~.igcQ_a§.?LAiNT MAY K;Ni3;,Y BE QUASHEE.
CRLP ?'EC5 752? OF' 2008
B€;t¥§%'1?di;:
,VI;fF;NDRA
fs;'~. SRI§~iIV1%SRAC) PARVATEKAR
;AC§-EH) ABGUT 55 YEARS
am RTD Mamagg
3?/"
N NO 21 PAYGBDE SBI COLONY
NEAR PGLICE HBAE3 QUARTERS
DHARWAD 580008 PE'TITi€JT€.ER
(By Sri: DINESH M KULKARNI, ADV}
And :
YALLAPPA S/G.BASAPPA YALAVAGI '
@ DAVANAGERE 1 '
AGE MAJOR " ._ _
R/O BADAMI =-RES?®:§:.£;ENT"; *
(By 31%. : V M SHEELVANT, Am}f~}
CRL.P Fawn' "~L€)S.'--.%4:32 ""'-:)'F:"'%CR.P.c BY THE
ADVOSATE ma THE I1~"'.§T:.";'VI"I'".l'VIvt;}I'*«i'IZ*}l'."2._vP.§§AY}NG THAT THIS
HON'l':3'LEv ..{j{)UI??':.;"--Mz%Y'----.8.'3';""i?£.E§ASE)D '90 QUASH THE
PRGQEEDING.-S QN«,T§~§E"*«Pf1L'€;_OF THE PRL. JMFQ, BADAME
IN C(;.. N'o.321/'::?G06»T.V{:$=<:R* No.29/2004) AS ETAR AS THE
PETITIGNEER isvct}N{:E'R_N1";"D.
--T_HEé'$';£.. ACf?.'iMI:'i\¥Ai; PETITKJNS COMING ON FOR
;%Frfi{IiSS§ON T'-HIVS .DAY, THE comm MADE THE
ORDER
‘ .p€%£i§oners have srmght far quashing the order
p;;ssea'<—- by' the Pmcipax JMFC, Badami in a Private
W
Compiaint No.29/£2004 in C.C.No.3;'21[2006 dated :28-4-
2006.
2. The petitioners are the accused in a Privatzs.
filed by the respondent before the JMFC E:otiomiT’
the various oifences under S{%ctice:.2;.1sV¥17’I.;v 474; ‘(KVVIPC
I am} also for other ofi”ences 1::_nder ‘St::o¥:ions 4:65;’
468, 474 and 209 IPC.
3. After talcirzg vtb.{~: sworn
statomerst, ‘iéS>;1–er_§.>°V The same has been
ohallénged by’t1″£é~ ..}:$e%ifio1_:iors~acc11sod as illegal and without
authoxitj oofiaw on variotgs other grounds.
E’1i}1é:VVV_potiiio33ers«’were said to he the empioyoes of State
‘ of As per the facts, the bzoiher of the complaint
from the Bank and the Bank filed a suit for
reooyéfir of the ioan amount against the respondent and
” V. xo£h.o1*sV.” The responiient filed a private complaint before
Badami and the matter was referrod to Police for
investigation. The Police submittcé 81 ‘B’ summaxy. The
xv
Trail eouxt accepted the objectiofis filed by the respondent to
the ‘B’ summaxy and taken cogfizance for the ofi’e;:ée-}{‘*1tot,ed
above, against which, a criminal ..A4″£evis;io:i ‘$3.1
Cr1.R.P.No.80/ 2006 was filed. This…1se_visic>fi”ti$é1e§’:Va§022éfet1 ax;
30-4-2008. However, the Trial C:0urt’_’_’iseued_ at
warrant against the petitio1§0efe_heIe’i:1. .HeI1ce;_”‘these two . L’
petitions.
5. This court in Cfimouel ?etifion..:;§0′.’fz033/ 2008 disposed
of on 19-12-295$’:has§;Aob$te:¥§’ed.VAt1;ie§t ut.he7VjRevisiona1 Court as
well ueozifimitted error of law. The
fieave jurisdiction to en.teI’£ai11 the
revision ufider Cr.P.C. against the order passed
1i;i§iEer;b_._A€4’0ection’A 226′-‘-‘%——–«€1r.P.,{3. It is also observed that the
L’ after recording the sworn statement of
.§t”3lii%?ap15a.v*v’B;._é..:§aV.ppa Yalavagi directed issuance of process to
pefifiofier end other accuseé for ofiences eunishable under
2 is7e.:,~eonV.’s 420, 465, 467, 468, 474, 209 £130. Further it is
that though the ieamed Magistrate was not expected
V’ R “to pass. a detailed order acting under secfion 204 Cr. P. (3., the
WM
learned Magistrate should have referred to the essenfial
ingredients of oflences, of which, cognizance was “The
learned Magistrate ought to have stated a
petitioners herein have oommittedAA»’forger$r.Verrdo ‘ f
have specifically mentioned the
period, alleged forgery Wasddeozgcxmitfed. . M S:§a1:i.;1gw-th5a.t the ”
order of the Revisionarl ‘w_e11_Vas {:1e« passed by
the learned Zv§agist1:vafe…V:ieeoxrii:zj,g_; .:s:w-orzl statement and
issuing procesgr ‘_e§t.1.,.9eide and remitted
the for reconsideration
from v”the’– staged :3_r€sei1teiiéoI1′ of the compiaint.
6. , It urge’ of the learned counsel for the
V’ . mriitichizerezthat th;e”‘eomplaint is not maintainabie. However,
A.?.tef_E:;en by the resporzdenfs counsel is that since
‘there in the order of taking cognizance and
a1so”§.eS’.uance of process and that the order ef the Revisional
“id” .¢¢m are erroneous and the entire proceedings initiated are
V.%Cf£1&iShEZ’.{i by {Eris court in another matter i.e.
M 0:1. P. mas /2008, 33*’
17. In the circumfitances, taking of cognizance as W611 as
isauance of process ané the order cf the Revisional__ Court
were set aside by this court in the earlier OII3l{‘3:IV’.””éi:.”;’1£7.i.V’.vf.}lti’:
matter has to be consiiiered afresh by the learfied
from thffi stage cf filing the comp1a_in3;..__’
8. In the cizcumstances, for t;§1(:i«V[3I”‘C”‘.’S{iI1f1, gricv’ar1cé~.-{of time;
petitioners hava met with. it t}.:icV;V9eti1;i:c5va_:1éé;*s}”Vi€§’ éontesf
the matter before the 1samedV-Pv€a:’gisti’at€ at’?-xpvpmiiriate stage
and ta take all such c1?if5e;1s€s._g§1:i}:i Accorfiiillgly”. these
two the above csbservations.
" %%%%% dd/*3 Jada?