_said complaint was referred under (Section 156(3) of
- Cr.P.C. to the jurisdictional Police for investigationplrlapndp
report. Based on such reference 'Jayanagar'Po~1.i:e'e:..v_'_
. registered the case in Crirne No. 47e}2o04:~iaedj~'1eioi§ up _:
-investigation. After completing the::"in{7estigati'on'Vitiheif
' Police filed Charge Sheet againet allthe se\i'ei;iAV..}efi'eveused.
persons named in thelcomplain_tllfo,r o1jfenees.pun_ishable
under Sections 378. 415; iii17-._4?53..""4'e4,§'i465. 468, 471.
506(b) and 120(bi-r/_w 34"of~!i?(i_}' 'V
o 3. The afterltaking cognizance
of the i .ch.arge«sheet directed issue
of summe.ns= to all"'th_e"aAeeu~sed persons including the
petitioner. l4"'i'hlerea;~fteif petitioner presented this
I :.'j"VV'petiti"on under Secti"on"V482 of Cr.P.C. seeking-to quash
'theltpr.oeeedings. interalia on the ground that
theiei/ide;iee4j'..-- collected during the investigation and
~ .l.J'_j'j:.-V'..__producedV__Aalong with the charge sheet do not prima facie
_n:.ake out any case against him for any of the offences
e/
alleged, therefore, the' proceedings against him isfiiahle
T to be quashed.
Learned Additional .2 it it
'represe_ nting respondent No. ._
‘No.2 upon service of noticeitovpjithis petitions V
through her learned
06. the complaint in
0 brief am 0 undef;V 0
The: 4. is the sister of late
N.L.g¢e” in the 2002 in Garden City
and at that time, he was aged
ahout The said N.L.Seetharaman had no
V. his wife Smt.Maha]akshmi died
subseqfienuy on 30.9.2003. The sa1d’N.L.Seet.hara1nan 0
absolute owner of property bearing No. 13 Hold)
_1_S£ew Katha No.16 measuring 60x80ft. situated at
M
(i) -A complaint can be quashed” where
allegations made in the complaint,
they are taken at _ their face
accepted in their entirety,
constitute any ofience or
-alleged against the accused :
For this purpose,
be examined a but
examining the ‘allegations.
Neither
of
the or. “of allegations
in “”” while
ofa complaint-
, (19.4 arse be quashed where it
_ of the process of the court, as
~ proceeding is found to have
with ‘mala fides/malice for
vengeance” or to caitse harm, or
.where I the are absurd and
2 V» ~._in.herently improbable.
V
9
(iii)The power to quash shall not, however, he
used to stile of sciittle a A’
prosecution The power should be’? H ‘
sparingly and with _ y i ” ‘
(iv) The compiaintis to
‘ reproduce the legal of’ the_ecjj”e’r1;oe
alleged. If the foundation
is laid in the the ground
-that a few .ingredienis stated in
detail, not be
complaint is
ogiiy complaint is so
bereft basic facts which are
absszuzezy for making’ out the
serene.
set of facts may make out: (a)
civil wrong: or (b) purely a criminal
A o_fl’ence:ilor (c) a civil wrong as also a criminal
A commercial transaction or a
A’ ‘ dispute, apart from filmishing a
” “cause of antic’ n for seeking remedy in civil
law, may also involve a ojfence. As
the nature of scope of a civil proceedings are
@
10
dyferent from la criminal proceeding, the mere
‘ I fact that the complaint relates to a ‘
transactzo’ n or breach Of contract» for wfiiéhi it
civil remedy isfiavapilable or =
is not by itself’ a ground to the’ A at
>. ed_ . The test \
l allegations in the
_ criminal ofieme erxnoi. –.
. 9. -r1’huS:’f1jom it is clear
that the. i can be
ti:e,e._avjer1j’1″ents.V11iade in the complaint,
:e§e1;_a: ft” .5′ V face value do not prima
facie make or make out -the case alleged
«~ -persons. As observed by the i
Court, for this purpose, the court is
_e5:amine the complaint. as a whole without
the merits of the allegations and neither a
“Edetailed ‘inquiry’ nor a meticulotls analysis of the
K nor an assessment of the reliability or
genuineness of the allegations the complaint is –
«&/
11
warranted While examining the prayer for quasliirigof
the complaint.
10. In the case on hand, the it ” V
on the ‘basis of the complafip
jurisdictional Magistrate, “i._:eonduc’tedw _ ‘V L’
coilected evidence and .found.—-sxu:fi’1cient niateriais to, file
charge sheet for it against the
accused pefihoner herein.
Learned Magis1;ram;7_Vo’Istcoixsideration of the materials on
reco’ H . there are sufficient
g1’ounds~to’-proceed’ accused persons for the
_ aforesaid ofi’ences}
A ~ the purpose of finding out as to whether
uorgfixhiot made the complaint; makes out
sufi44’ici,eiV1t.VgI’ounds to proceed aga1n’ st the accused
V’ V’ V. I perused the “complaint allegations and also .
— “copies of the evidence produced along with the
it e sheet filed by the jurisdictional police. At this
V
12
“stage, it cannot be said that the allegations. made A’
complaint and the evidence
Investigating Ofiicer during i11vestigation~’_4’at1_t.i i 1 as
along with charge sheet, prima
any ofl’enoe. The materiaf Is -.§’1’~oduced._ sjthe ” V
charge. sheet, in my opinion,,i11a1§es V61 priina facie case
against the petitioner ,ofi’ence alleged in
the charge This find any valid
ground ” ‘§u’oceedings. Learned
counsel time” to produce report
froin Seetharaman had’
been admitte<1:'aniCi diedito show his physical
ycondition during that period. However, at
request cannot be acceded to. Even
if _ is produced,_ it cannot be looked into
'"by_ tliiait' court for the purpose of quashing the
Z It may be a good evidence that can be
vttyypioduced by the petitioner by way of defence during the
' trial of the case. Having regard to the facts and
V
13%
circumstances of the case, I so not see any merit
petition. Accordingly. the petitipn under
Cr.P. C. is hereby dismissed.
'S'?