IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 3A;\I'_§§'A:;:_3IéEj1' _
DATED THIS THE 10" DAY OfA»DECEM*B*Ev-F§{::j2O'O:§§ E'
BEFORE}
THE HON'E5LE MR. JUSTICE___ EIULWIIDVI <;'I'r{,;IIȎ'EVSH:':
CRIMINAL PETITIoN"E'N'Q;;42:7 'OT..V:2E_ob9 Vi:
BETWEEN:
1 Sri G C?RA3;E'S_h_ 4_ "
S/O Ski C'«.¥#7li"r<'}<APL'J-7]fT¥_fE'*GOW'DA_'
A9voCATE_ ' 'i'E"" 2
I2.,"A---Mo' 130, "I;:.;1--"' "MA-IN "
M C 1-.AA-sIv_API$~A, ADVOCATE)
' .11' SITATEVICF-_KARNATAKA
. «EABvY:'S.ATE1-N--UR POLICE
. sAI:E»I'II'~§uR, KANAKAPURA TALUK
REP 52:' LEARNED PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BA«NGALORE--O1
E' ESRI MAYEGAPPA
S/O LATE Sré MARE GOWDA
R/O GERAHALLI
SATHNUR HOBLI
KANAKAPURA TALUK RESPONDENTS
§k/
.. 2 ..
(By Sri: BHAVANI SINGH, SPP FOR R3)
»O~o»o»
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED O/S.ét8’2.’V’c’E;Vi:5.’c
PRAYING TO QOASH THE PROCEEDINGS AOA.I’ST*H1-i4__”
C.C.NO: 468/2009 EENOIM3 ON THE FILE O’I~f_”vTH_I~:..cI\/IIIOI ”
JUDGE (JR.DN.) 8:3?’/EFC, KANAKAPUARA.
THIS PETITION COMING Oh: ¥C)’R..?\[5IfV§_iS’S’If)’N:”TH’i:iS’«
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE EOL:,O’tri1Iix:.g;;–
OEOEE I
The petitioner has fOT”~O:LJ.aShfing the
proceed’in”gS;V.iI’).’C:’C::,.v’.NO.:}4’68/A’2U’Ow9″pending before the Civii
Judge nior’ Kana kapu ta.
2. brother OT—.the compiainant is said to have
aSsagJ’ited the “p§§tit’iOnVer and Others. The case is Said to
TT’e_gisterecJ on the complaint filed on behalf of
complainant herein which came to be
reg’i’Stere”ci 25m2m2009 at 12.35} pm. The incieent is
t.O’V-have taken place Or; 24–2–2009 at 2.00 pm.
E._«’S_I:’bsAequent to this a counter case is filed against the
-petitioner and Others alleging/assault on one Shivakumar
Qt
-3…
The complaint is said to have been filed on 26-2-2009
which is registered at 12.30 p.§”:’é, After énvest.i’ga_tion
charge sheet is said to have been filed. The
come up before this Court urging various grou”i”lc:ls.-jV’n-.. 22
3. According tot he le_a.rne_d covunsei.Foréhth-e
petitioner, the petitioner is a 7.ora.f¢ti-cing»._Ad:Voca:te_”ait
Bangalore. On coming to khO”\/’=.–i….Gf the” hicidéihit}iNh.i.C.h~tooi<K
place on 24-2-2009 at 2.00 p_,__rh';i,_w'-h_erei.n"the petitioners
brother and hospitalised for more than
20 days .__Eii'i{§ to the Hospital to see his
brotiwevrgghe4.Vha_s"also" {teen falsely implicated and also
,2.,gslgleigeda'-"o\Jei=tact agiainst this petitioner is that he assaulted
the back of the injured. Although the
aiAl€Q€dv_'."WICi'd'é'flt is said to have taken piace on 24-2-2009
t.he-Zcompiaint flied against the petitioner by the
«'–..c'o-mplainant after 2 days is an after-thought and as a
..,.counter blast for having filed the case against the
complainant and others in the counter case.
xiv
_4_
4. “though notice is served on the res_po_nd’en_t~
compiainant, he is not present. I have
counsei for the petitioner and the learned S3.”lé’>”.?–..:’_” .
S. It transpires that the com’pfiaui’ngt{icarnev”toHv.ir}e.’
filed against the respondents andllothersxrjfrillillagvingii’.
assaulted the brother of the pe’titionVei’ Itgis not in
dispute and also avs–._._.’fper–‘_V the “r.T_ieTd’i’C_ai evidence the
petitioner’s brother W<";lAS..d_Ci*lTi'lllt:'fIAE3iCJ to':lttieltliospitai and he
was than 23 days. The overtacts
attributed agpainstilthis:_4'petiti'oner in the counter complaint
fiiedfoy _the4:2"'5'_re'spon'de.nt is that he assauited at; the back
at"o{il'th6El1".llh,lél;'~r§EI Svhiuakuihar. The complaint is fiieo by
it'~nVe.phevllV':'«v.e.o'fiVfjshivakumar against the petitioner. The
pet-i.tion__ern clfairns that he was not at all present at the time
ofggthe'i..-ihcident. However, on coming to know of the
'' –..iVnc.idzent of assauit on his brother he went from Bangalore
see his brother and a false case has been filed against
him and the other ground raise by the learned counsel for
"*5.
the petitioner is that after falsely implicating _
in this case, the petitioner is stated to on it
the back of the injured Shivai<uma.r fro-in it
6. Section 95 of §.P.C. causing
slight harm that “l\§othi–i.n’g reason that it
causes or that it_i_s it is known to
be likely to is so slight that
no person tvernlper would complain of
such what is being noted at
the is a complaint belatedly filed
by the _2″”.resvp’o’nde’nt.and also that apart from the
at”oye’rtacEt”l:a4l§gged against do not attract Section 324 or 504.
i’-;llidhf;éltltedimx th~e«:”case been filed by the 2″” respondent
agairéstVthevlipetitioner is a counter case filed belatedly after
:'”the complaint is filed against the 2″”; respondent herein
and others in the instant case.
3/
For the above said reasons, the Petétéonifls’e’1’i;o:v\?~e.d_,”‘_
The proceedings initiated in so far as the.-.§j:e.t:ét’é~o:”z«er
e§_ V’
Concerned is quashed.