High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri V Raghavendra S/O Late Sri … vs The Insurance Inspector Esi … on 23 March, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri V Raghavendra S/O Late Sri … vs The Insurance Inspector Esi … on 23 March, 2009
Author: Dr.K.Bhakthavatsala

-Hm vww «emu-w – -I wt-wuw rn -warm ‘l\B’=Il.l’bIWII1I-i£%’!\l”W IIIVGIWI \’v3\J’lnPlt’i \sfll”‘IVW’IItI’I.&\!l’flfl\.l”9.”‘FIl’56JE”£’ VX3359 ‘ 1′}? –

IN we may centres’ or Kasazsanmxa AT 3A2esALog:_:.?_j-..’_:’T..,_

DATES THIS mm: 23″‘ my or mma 20¢-3″”” 7T.j[; :

BEFORE

THE HON’.BL-E’ £3R.J£?’5″I’ICE K. af!AK5’32a3LvifI*SA??§§ ‘&

Cr1.P.No.5G;’§I”’2£?06–‘A’v. ‘ .

BETWEEN ‘.’

$$$$$-QIOIOIQ

1

am,”

SR1 v Inmxrxunna V ; ~
5/0 mm sRxA”vAsz:a1:w_;:HAa4″»}._
AGED
Sm K sisugmrm-V–. > ~
W/0 5111 V.,RA:::~:1avzfs:>3.a ”
AGED’i’fi30W,’»35

BOTH RE5I.13’I_NG”£sT»»«.

APART1Ei~?I’*1jIO§’f3O’1A »– V

:~:o,1’%53i1-V-?V, ‘.171′?
M£.\I_.5fa&I.E ..__BA.N£5i”aIe0BE .. . PETITIOEERS

1’ P. I, ADVOCATE)

‘mm .. CE msmzrroa
£51 conyomfrxw

– = gafitiemoas

SRI.G..P.PRABHU

sic G.K.PRABHU
AGED 52 YEARS

515:1: VIJAYA PRABHU
we SRI.G.P.PRABI~IU
A633: 59 yams

E}
m
52
3
§
§
2
3
§

9.
6
E’-


3
6
U
:2
Q
1
5
§
2
3
§
lain
G
3
3
$
9
m
2
x
3
Q
2
E
§
Eu
Q
§-N
K
3
Q
iv}

an-«ml

nc Wm-was wan” mmnnumawnm HWRW @«.¢-W-‘?’m*5:i’i¢;i U?’ KKKWKEWWK é””‘l<5;eW

M

4 SEE PRAJVEL P PRABHU
DIG SRI.G.P.§RABH
AGED 27 YEARS

mspommrrs 2 TO 4 AT :

No.20, 3″ MAIN’, 2-m::.1.£ser;nnA1£« .§
BPsNGALORE-560 003 ‘

5 M/mcmssxc !~IDTELS”&”-RESGRTS V
No.31, FALACE oncannash
EHASHYAH CIRCLE
1:: MAIN, 0P?:CA..’§ARA” BAh’–I{
VYALIKAVAL _ x
sA1~rc~.:ALoRE–56o 0031′ ,~..,V;.;.;v.,nEsroNnEr::rs

{By szq.t”=E 1’P £§§:E’;§:;;i23E$%3i’.i_’:?£)i?,T,iH?s.x 9
a firs-‘soc:;%s1*ss EUR rm

THI3 FII3ED”TI.($.432 m*.:fr1om:Rs PRAYIHG THAT THIS
I~IO1~I’BLE_ ‘PLEASED we QUASI-if/’SET
ASIDE Tm 4. 03.1331: ;j~B1:tIfi:s::;..16.1.06 PASSED 3: THE

991.. CUURI – (ECONSI-I-I€ «. oxmvcnsa nmmem IN
cc.He,?42/02,’ ‘– > ‘”

‘v2ETIfiéIcfi”comHG on mm 03132115 mxs

‘–.%I3 a:z.,, MADE ‘IRE FGLLOWING:

GREEK

.. petitiozmrsfacczusad Nos.2 and 4 in
%@;¢;¢%.2«r¢..742;2oo2 on the file of Special com;
T {Economie Gffiamesi, Bangalara are before this

xCe:>u1:t: undm: Section 482 csf C:.P.C., pcaying

for quashing the mrciuaxz: dated 16.1.2908

L

mm-1: magma’! Q? KARNATAM mm»: ca

%
3
§
E
E.

3

E
3
3
5
r
E
m
E
§
52
§
3
E
3
E
2
§

xx.-« aw em I now u nu-mm: ua”Vx>uar”vA&\4″u a wear» ta ta in ‘M9?’ at )K’&J”V&tfla&’W£’1!K”tK\&”ta

U

directing the affirm ta xregizater: saparfita

cases against accused N«oa.1, 3, 5 8: -5

2. The brief facts of “i:he~

tax filing at the petit:Ti=:>n A m_a§r_ he ‘§f:Aatacz”

undez::- V ‘
Raspandant No,.*1,{_Es:=””ca§:;§§r.;ti§>£:”flied a
Private Camplaint 200 cf
C.’:c.P.!.’.’.’., Hotels 5
Regatta, vita yartnersww
accusagg” that they have
cattutrittif’-had” “Section 3515.; gm of

E.5.IV.._ Acii; ‘l$éBA.’=_ Vfirarned Magistrate after

:_::~:::;:;r;iza;i£1c::a”””£3: the above said affanca

“i’_ra”e=Vf.T2_é%.:! to the accuaed. In ahadience cf

thé 3e3.’.’§?3–._.c$ of summons, the present

‘»e._ p,etiti’c:§é:ra fiwpeued befere the trial

mflme

the ether accused fag rot served, the
},v¢_arned Magistrate A ‘ordered to register

Isaparate cases against aceitseci No.1, 3, 5 & 6,

which is irmugned in this petiticsn.

L

Hawaii:

a wwwnm ur mammmammm mmw %b..ifkaa”EV¥:;.§!€% mi’ Kflflflfléffififfia sm=§.;$’r%*°E fiflflfl?’ 0? KARNKVAKK HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA HIGH GOUKY OF ¥€.&§%éfi£i°5AK& HEGH C

be

3. Learned Counsel for the petitifififirs

auhits the afifence under Section 85{i5ihyl¢§,?_
E.S.I. Act, 1948 is joint M¢f£eabé» by :thaJ””‘
acauaad and the case cannflt be %§1it tfi§FEE;;

further cited a aacszsiofi=:;gpo§s::§:%1az:’::.:;a%VVg¢o5%

an 393 1a mm:

cunt. nan case where
cffenca under Sfictiafi i3E,§$ Eh? fi.I.Act was
split up §n& i§i§h%tjm%s§ §$§ 6£dez regarding

split up wag $é§_§$id§;*

4fK’Ia&raé&j¢$fifi3fi; for Respandent Nb.1-

CorpQzati¢fi~ §ub$ité that there is na

“il1é§&li£y Q: infitmity in the impugned order.

L”_*[$;”733g§ifig in view, the offances

V al1§§9d §gQinst the accused is under Section

“K’ ‘ “x5V:5*:’_iJ’_(5’) at the E.S.I. A¢:::, the axial ccmt
ljahfifilfi have aequzed tha athez a¢cuaed peraona
T wfifbi the purpose of trial. It is pertinent to

4«mention that since the petitionaxs/accused are

willing ta wait far ssxviae of sumans on the

othez accused aé there waa na need ft: the
E

….. II

……w…v….- wuwpilugisuu vs Ina1nwIr1ItrIl\I”‘I lII’Iii7I-I umvwuua \wW”‘ nmwmmnflmm E1333” &\JUK! L3?’ C

II

trial Court to split up the case against’4,p§i:§1§¢a.;*

a<::a':u5ed while proceeding with

pntitianera for the alleged. ;;;ffianx:e;';"'v'«:.1:j'_V. "'V.

6. Keeping in View tAi19 “_1fZtatu£§}t.A”0f~

affence, the learned sin
directing the offige stéi’tigségiiatait”sépazcata

caaea against accused 6.

7. In ..c-éijf’ patition is
aJ.1awec:_._%__m.ai (mad 16.1.2006 on
the fi£,_e 3::-‘.5 {Economic Offencea} .

Bar:ga..1::s.\:é1. -dir3étVin§”—-..t.”f:ha officm ta register

sepazfiigéte. casteatfittgafiinst acemzaed 1*Ios.1, 3, 5 &

e, is §§t.§3ide.

Sfii-§___
Euége