Vidyalatha Shenoy vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 March, 2008

h--

THE HON'BLE M12;.Jgs'ricIé§'i>:. AN,»..1m:1§¢_V"   M
cnmum ;._PETm_"Vu(?v;¥..V*:It'g:39'§§'i?_{V_   
B E N:     
1. smnvidyalatha sh¢ji§$ 

W10. Gajaz1_ana:'¥$henQy-' '  ._
Aged a::bm;t,.28 ~ '

R]e:~!i~ 22/7,itmma.R¢e&, mm Main

   A  

2.  §:_:i_   %

'3] 0.. K. v,?'VV., AV '.2 nun on run '
"v}:'Kfi'.I1.3vu?n3u1w:fa. S'v'v'u..

Fiatuwe, Britta Lane
__ 'lvi'aVn'gaio1e. ...P uiu 1'''

9''!-

=5
3
I
P
3
B
1
H

A  AA (By ..SrLfB.V. Pinto. Advocate) '

 1. The State of Kar1_1at_akaTby'

Pviangalare %ut}1  .Stat.'....11.

Mangalom.

 



I-J

510

914 B.RaIna "E-......flI9.

570. Late Dr. Subbami Baliga
Ageri 86 years
R] a: Adonai Towers, Highlanti'  A

Mangaiomé.   T j...;'  T. T f

(By Sri H.Hanu1nantl1a1§ayappa,"._ HQGP1»"'for' R1"; 
B.La..A_o11e;ye;, Advocate for RL'-?.)_ " . '   'V 

This Gzimina! wtition  made eefltion  C_'«reP,G,,
praying to quash the *proeeedir}."ge in P,..C,'No, 10 2 o
1 Acid}. C.J.M., Mang9J'e:'e,.,new as Crime N935 2004
against petitionerefisete. T ' " V * ' '

This petition eoujing for fir§e!_l1eai?izig this day. the Court
rrrde the fGH5.'}'fi"ii:§gi _ '-- ' . " 

- - -  '-- -..-_'.=.e_-... '".;;.' ..... ..., -.. -
111 *.. 2 er' mgr ymi us: emuuucd 2, 3 8.5 5 11.: ea

No.713f2004,-  oifellces punJs' habie under

see_ti_oI1s 4€)5', .420  IPC by Mangalome South Police,

3 "  _ liéve  thie i3et:'-flan to quash complaint.

1 "'v §'.«.,!'VI'}:1.¢"3v.s)1"'f 1:: -t

for  of petition are as foiiowe:--

" 'v...'i'hc inter est: relationship of petitioners and other

" --ac:eueed me as follows):-

Aocueed No.5 is the father of accused 3 85 4. Accused

Noa.1 85 2 am the daughters of aeeused No.5. The H-



M3

During the year 2662, pcfifiofiéifi I if) Sfivéie   2:  

Accused No.5 was staying at  hi 

requested complainant to leixd. a_ sum cf ,

to perform maniage of Flex. 1.  stated by
accused No.5. his  they have
substantial irncpmc.  need not worry
about Thi$_  by pefifionels

and ethcf Qfi'Cé'a1;.h.  ggmplajméggt  a

. . ' . .. "    - ' .
=15: am-.:.s.-3.-1 919.5, fm wk-.1911. .....'~-In W11.-

3-' _ .1

atooci as   tr: aCxT'.l.im:LI" a

'-a

...._..._

fll

FL'B.'_1-',0O,xO40{')]'~  b610W:-

 .:C:)hr,que"t1at=:é'1l.06.2003 for a sum of Rs.2,75,00()/-

' .~ _  21.02.2003 for a sum of Rs.25,000/--

" iii.' vCf.ié:;1iit§Vdatod 19.12.2002 for a sum of Rs.40,000/-

 .. ""3s..'6o.ooo/-- in cash
The maniage of I-petitioner was performed on

- w n nf.nded. by all the aepugcd, when

I u-nu Ian'-vI7-------

..1.....l 1' .. ....-....-nu.-....-.-. '
t "f "wve sand 1.':-an ....m-o.:.=..':t,



-In

accused No.3 shified his residence '_'7i"iieiWefoIeo:,i'aVV 
complaint under section 200  3 = 
offences punishable 1mder.»seefions.!4i05,   s,
againstaocused 1 to5.   V V i V  

In the eomplaiiigfa  wasiiinnde to refer
the oo1:nplaint to   Pandeshwar
Police Statiorigeiii'  The learned

   

 '' At this .. it is necessary to state, petitioner

i ,.  iilx have heard learned Counsel for petitioners and

2    HCGP for I-respondent. The learned Counsel for II-

"""""' (U Qwmo J



  acuc-nan} :16.

U'!

4. The l%'**..u-J' %'.meel for """F.".'.§t'iGI';e}"€'§.- would' '~e_u'iaf..,.i.e

averments of complaint accepted cnp their  » 
establish transaction in questicn   
averments made against Hccnsecili" to  L.
improbable. Even if theme weet' _inoneteiy'i't1*eigeection, it
was between  No.5.  I to 4
who are staying in   implicated to
obstruct their'   Mangalome and vice

verse-.. £1'; tlrieee cimu11i:s=.m;:s".:. 'ies.=;rn..ed. C_I_In_..1 w H

s"bif.ir" c'n'a"'--1ii.=.%.o/§.r»~a»~<L ,



G\

g an these aemte has 

referred the complaint to    AV:  '4
i . \ Iegietered crime Nc;,:75/hzotfieeniit'eniyagemst
accused mmhtioned in oompieipt, bot agai31at4_vpe1:_';tioner" ;

No.3, whose name has not bee-;i1w..._1x;1e1;;Vtio1Vie:i   and
no avennents have '   to her
involvement  moneAt£g_1f§':v;»\¥'}1ich took place
between   VTIICIBFDIB, I am of

mwneiden-ii :3?-;i,11.L..1;,» L;.e...;r_-"J~

..,_r --

= 2

 :a_g:_na:«;-. hefoge n;a.l_o'_11g

Ieféfiéflfie '

;,_"_'1__. ' -..'_.. 'r.-.' . 
1.1.13 1'  u._}.u5 13} ul. . ., u I.l.Il.«l. uavu aylunu-\.|.

his  to £1ve1'}:iIeni:s« oo:'~.np'1am' t.

 6.  Di.\_Vr_ieion'V'Bench of this Court in the case of

   ....n..,. oihore   Bhat 

 '  'If every eompiaint filed under seofion 206

H  is referred to the police under section
156(3) without application of mind about the
disolostue of an oflenoe, there is every likelihood

of unscrupulous oomplainants in older to



'J

. .......nm.... 3* tliezsiw  " '

25
ii

._1_1 _11_.__;.:,_.

their coinpiainte malriflg bauu um: uu"i':.. ."ji.iat~.

.2: 
I

see that the  aocuaeci:  . 
police who have no otlrieljgo  to  
as ordered by the   is
mandatory for .2 apply' iii.-3 
to the allegaiiolle  and in
only  wifich '  ..  Voflence. the
V'  to order an
  'Wu :1 Lu a'l}eg"':'i"'1s
__    does not ciisciose
  ..._.ofl'ence, the Magiuate has no
r to older police investigation under

 13)."

x  In View of the above, i pass the foi'lowing:-
ORDER