IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 26'?" DAY OF' JULY 2010
BEFORE
THE I-ION'I%3LE MRJUSTICE SUBHASH 5. ;;f: _
CRIMINAL PETITION Noiaizs/_2omj «
BETWEEN: ' i it 4
Sri.H.Hanuinantharaya A.
S/ o Late Snlflanumanthaiah, 66.y'ears
R/a Lakshminarasirnha Nilaya L' _ '
PLD Bank Road, K.R.EX1:ension
Madhugiri --- 572 132 ' " '
Tumkur District. _ .. PETITIONER
(By Sri.G.S.Venka._tSnbbzirao,' ~ . V_
AND:
State by_CBI i5oiieN;,::;;:_. ., '
Bellary Road '~ "
Bangalore ---.56o'o32-_.e .. RESPONDENT
This Crir:1ir1a,1¢vPetiiioifis filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
praying tdquash .. the entire proceedings in Sp1.C.C.225/2009
passved'i~b_'{_the XXXII';--'--'~.--dd1. City Civil ('SI S.J. and Special Judge
for.CBI cases'*._{CCH 34) at Bangaiore city as against this
'..p'etitionerv._and~consequently discharge the petitioner from the
o'fferice¢a_iieged against him in the aforesaid Spl. C.C.225/09.
"-«.fIhis'pet.i'tion coming on for admission this day, the Court
'made the ufoiiovvingr
ORDER
it ?etitioner –~ accused No.2 has called in question the
‘niiroceedings in Spi.C.C.No.225/2009 on the file of XXXII
Add1.City Civil (‘St Sessions Judge (‘it Special Judge for CB1
Cases, Bangalore City.
2. Case is registered by the C.I3.I. Police in’
No.RC.02{A)/2009 on 29.1.2009 for the offences,1–§mf;is1i;ai$1t:…_T’r.
under Section i20–B read with Secti__o.ns__419_–,
471 of IPC and further read with Section :3 “s.gfb»§ecti;ajii..A(s:3e7
read with Section 13 sub–section_ ‘{~]._} clauses {C} ivdivvoffithe
Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. On investigation,’ Vdtifie have filed the
charge sheet. As, as concerned, ailegation
is that, the No.1 to open an
account Cooperative Society Limited,
Madhugiri,-.Tu.rnkur’distrivct°and accused No.1 by forging the
signature of thegvpolitzyhoider, on Whose behalf the cheques
“were i,ss~ued, has withd-r–awn the amount. Ail the persons, who
were introduced by the petitioner.
Serious allegaiioins are made against the accused No.1 as
drefgarddto vddforgery and drawing of the money belonging to the
~p_’c1.icy”«-holders and further as against this petitioner, it is
___”f«a11egedA that this petitioner has assisted accused No.1 in
the account opened on fictitious name. Considering
the same, the charge sheet disckoses prima facie material to
proceed against this accused. It is not a case for interference
at this stage.
Accordingly, the petition fails and same is “u
twat’
KNM/~