Loading...

Sri Rathilal Bhimji vs Smt Veeramma on 9 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri Rathilal Bhimji vs Smt Veeramma on 9 October, 2009
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 09?" DAY OF OCTOBER--«2D®.V:_'

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HUL 

CRIMINAL g;;T1T1oN N0.46§2 0152909 = A  

BETWEEN:

1 A SR1 RATHILAL BA:H£.MJIOAO.OHO:.   
S/OGAPATEL    ' 

65_YEARS__     A
R/AT SHAN'F.HIN_AG R ISV"F..}3:LuOC:E:{'

K_OLARi_SOMF_fUR'A 12_oA13,.     
VJAYAFU---R'A'T_QW1f§_I3--ES}fAIxIA.HALLI TALUK.

Fr_:O1V{ESO,El\?"»;'$_{V.Y_ TR'/ATOl5:'TAO;f.().3'7_',6TH CROSS, 2ND MAIN
KHB' COLONY,' 'r'.EL.AHANKA, BANGALORE 64.

2 5121 PRENIJIV S--/OLATE BHIMEH PATEL
A ._;f 60 YEAR'S  ' V
A  {R/'AT LAKSHM1' SAW MILL,

V A. ,   KLQLAR"ROAD, SHANTHINAGARA

  O"»'IJAYAi?{§RA TOWN DEVANAHALLI TALUK.

 *   A  PETITIONERS

 (By Sr:.L¢xA§<is, Adv.)

  

"   1  SMT VEERAMMA

W/O LATE CHOWDA?PA



 A (By"Sri.GLB}i2iYani Singh, SPF)

71 YEARS 
R/AT BYRAPURA VILLAGE   
VLIAYAPURA HOBLI DEVANAHALLI TAL'UK,-.'j_ .

2 SMT PADMAMMA w/0 LATE cH0wDARPA« ~   

AGED 66 YEARS
R/AT BYRAPURA VILLAGE,  _
VIJAYAPURA HOBL1, A "A
DEVANAHALL1 TALUK.

3 SR1 C VENKATESH S/GMLATE CH0WDAPi1P'A..S, 
AGED 41 YEARS    
R/AT BYRAPURA VILLAGE,__ 

VIJAYAPURA HDBLI,  , f '  
DEVANAHALLI T'ALUK,_   S '

4 SR1 C GOVI-JSIDAR"/X}LT::'S/()..LA;1;i'E1C.i§O'WDAPPA

AGED i36'VYEA:RS."'~_ M A
R/AT BYRAPURA'J_I'LLAGE,
VIJ'A_YAPURAfHQB.LI; 
DEVANAHVALLITALUK.

 5  STATE RER. BY VEAYARURA POL£CE
 .   

‘ A . Y IJEVANAHALLI, BANGALORE.

'      ...RESPONDliiN'I'S

>I}=

his Criminai Petition is fiied under Section 482 of

praying to quash the FIR registered by Vijayapura

XV

Police Station, Devanahalii, Banglaore in Crime No.87{2009
dated 6.6.2009. ‘

This Criminal Petition coming on for orders

Court made the following-

Petitioners have sought for to;”:qua’shr~’theii’~FIR_.i’ini

No.87/O9 dated 6.6.09 and all. streamers pm;¢d,ingsins PCR i C

No.64/09.

3. In eonineetion the sale of the property in favour of

“*.,the there*~is” said to be civil suit filed by the

responderrts; ~ }X::_e’ording to the petitioners’ Counsel when there

is ref1;sa1_.o~f:tfieitemporary injunction order by the Civil Court

iinfavo1irv.oi° the respondents in order to impiicate the petitioners

harass them a raise complaint has been filed alleging

‘AV

forging of the documents and creating of sale deed in favour of

the petitioners.

4. As per the submission may;ie”a”;priVtate_:<c_ornpIaint«'

filed by the respondents against the petitioneirs he rtiattefisii'

referred under Section police
investigation. So far filed." When the
complaint is filed Aa11egingVV_f_rva'ttd against
the petitionersahdiiiiieiiinazttefhas to the police for
investigatiopni it p the proceedings at this
stage. by the police affects the

petitioners, 'then vth.e3i/Vsicotiid have recourse to law by

' «..apptoaeh§–Iig this Cou1"t—-or' the trial Court.

xggb,/'

5. Since, it is too premature to consider the petition for

quashing the FIR and 3}} further proceedings,

dismissed.

Bkp.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information