IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 11'1"" DAY OF NOVEMBER 2010
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE B.SRE'ENIVASEZ_:'GO7V§I'Ji32E.:.V _
CRIMINMJ PETITION NO/1--36Q Z
BETWEEN O O'
SR1 PARASMAL RATHOD JAIN, _
S/O. LATE GOMAJI '
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
GURUPRIYA APARTMENT
5TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS
NEAR RAM MANDIR " . I _ ; I 'I
CHAIVIARAJPET, BANGALORE -"£3600
. jf - _ '_ I PETITIONER
(BY SR1 RAMESI-I~C:¢-IANLDRA & SRI"~Sj.;N._BASAVARAJU,
I . CHICKPET, POOLiC'E" Sj.;xTzON
BANGALO_RE- *
..«,£3EPf2ESENTE1}___1§Y' PUBLIC PROSECUTOR.
D BHANDRI
' 58'-Y1?i3ARS
.. '-.NO§45'_8_, MAIN ROAD
' 4TH. BL€_.ICK, JAYANAGAR
"BANGALORE.
" " RESPONDENTS
O. .,hO(BYSSRI:OBRAJABALASUBRAMANYA BHAT, HCGP FOR R1
“~.A\ID”SRI H.N.MANJUNATH, ADV. FOR R2}
CRLP FILED U/S.-482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
“FOR THE RETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HON’BLE
‘ COURT MAY EE PLEASED TO QUASH AND SET ASIDE THE
&.
2
CHARGE SPIEET IN C.C.NO.7’/’67/2008 ON THE FILE OF
THE IX ADDL.CMM., BANGALORE.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING FOR…vI*°I.It\IAL
HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING-:”-« V.
0 R D E R
The petitioner in the abovemppetition”hassought’ ”
for quashing of entire: ;’_proceed’in’gs I I’ A .i’1*1f
C.C.No.7767/2008 pendingvionp me file = ”
Bangaiore.
2. Heard the appearing for
the for the respondent
No.1. .._I3espi~te time, there is no
representation fort respondent N o . 2.
.”I’11at on 04.06.2007, the respondent No.2
p1;ifVate;;.’eomp1aint against the petitioner before
‘V the Court under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. In
2..jfparagraph 5 of Complaint, it is alleged that the
Complainant is the President of the Adinatha Temple
Trust, Chiekpet and the petitionelvaccused started to
£52:
interfere in the administration of the temple and all
the members of the temple opposed and asked:’h_eimf’to
leave the premises. The complainant.–Ag’:bei4ng3f’the’
president of the trust had to take» ‘thence if
accused started to blame and appllications
that the trust members are ‘miyusing._the”.temple and V
the complainant though ofifnerl of the
building, is constructinfigogllfitiilpdjsfig’~ff.’b%’.it.violating the
rules and 6 of the
complainant got
issuedenojticlelff’tjat_ed to the petitioner calling
upon him.__t0 played by him within
from”-t.h_e___date of receipt of the notice. In
the complaint, it is alleged that the
playing mischief and threatening to his
life, committed the offence punishable under
426, 427 and 506 of 119C.
4. The Trial Court by registering._ the
complaint as PCR No.12325/2007 referred.thefeiéisafnpe
to the first respondentpolice for investiigati-on
Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. ‘: S
additional statement from the con*1plaina’n:t
to the effect that on petitioner»
accused attacked Main Road in
front of construction,-efvihtiiidirig by him at
No.2o2, him with filthy
language the offence, filed the
charge punishable under Section
323, 34i,r,5o4Si;anaa_5o}3’ of we and dropped the case
agaiinstg the A”pe.titi’oner in respect of offences
tpi1nis1qab1¢”arieaer Sections 426 and 427 of IPC.
“The point that arises for my consideration
Magistrate refers the private complaint filed
Section 200 of Cr.P.C. to jurisdictional Police
investigation under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C., the
police except investigating the complaint referred to
(3;
them can they take additional statement and enlarge
the scope of investigation beyond the coniplaint
referred to them by Magistrate.
6. After hearing V-t_vhe;_-~,tearned’- CQ_1l’11SCl
appearing for the partiesgind perusing”records”
and relevant provisions o.f:laW”;.._.l once a
private complaint complainant under
Section 200 of Magistrate is referred
to jurisdgicltional’fgoli-ce.__for_ invesfigation under Section
156-of cannot take additional
staten1e’n_tbtanV(l_ ‘enlarge the sco e of investi ation
_ .,«:> P
t_he.s”cope¢.vof complaint referred to them for
‘ .V.i,n*»*es’tigati.o:ri~-_and file charge sheet for altogether a
fldifferentfiIoffence than one alleged in the private
complaint presented under Section 200 of Cr.P.C.
7. It is to be noted that the offences alleged in
the private complaint filed by the complainant against
the petitioner before the Trial Court are under Sections
426, 427 and 506 of {PC and the Tria} Court registering
the said complaint referred the same:l:lto4:’»Vi..lf’irst
respondent–police for investigation. So,
investigation is to be eonfinecfftoftlieg lOff€I1–€té»’–axl.lt3’gfl€VVd in if.
the private complaint prVe»sented—laefore gtlhi.elfi”rlial’i’:
and referred to police, police. lgafterlreceipt of
complaint could not4_hpave.’_xobt,a’ine~diadditionai statement
and filed charge sheet other than for
which was..lvl”re’icrred to them for
invevstigation. in entire private complaint
presented there is no reference to the
allegatioins _tl1atI–on. ll’7:.05.2007, the petitioner attacked
. the compiainantlllon the Chickpet Main Road infront of
abused him with filthy language. A
perusalfofifallegations made in the private complaint,
.. d_isel’o-se that the petitioner raised objections with regard
l’._lltofconstruction of building by the compiainant and it
does not contain the allegations that on 17.05.2007, the
petitionenaccused attacked the 2″” respondent-
£4;
7
complainant on the Chickpete Main Road in front of
construction of building undertaken by him at No.202,
203, 203/1 and it is included for the first tirne..___in the
additional statement furnished on O7.08.20(Jl:’7ifl’-filhe
investigation held by the 151 respondent~pol.iTce.
the scope of private cornplaiiitmpresented:lV’by_ the 2W1 91′
respondent and referred by Trial
respondent–police for l’fiiriixestigatiion:1: l”1.:Therefore,V
continuation of such ‘criminallplrocve-epdingslvvilll not serve
any useful purpose rat’h.erii”_it :vvouVl’dfV_relsult in abuse of
process it raw, 123-.’
it does not dispute the
above facts and’ position of law.
“For the reasons stated above, the criminal
‘lalllowed. Proceedings in C.C.N 0.7767 / 2008
the file of IX ACMM, Bangalore are
” quashed.
Sdffi
Iudg’é