Vijaya Masilimani vs State Of Karnataka on 28 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
Vijaya Masilimani vs State Of Karnataka on 28 March, 2008
Author: N.Ananda
THE HON'BLE MR.¢lUSTiCEr$. Amafegfifi  
CRIMINAL  nrq,3139%gg%%%;oo4  V
BMW EN:  _   
Vijaya Maailjmani
Pmpricttix é ' '

vivy Pashjo;1a;i1.-5'! 15;. In Méifi'; :   ~ 
Mun1ges_1;p5'dy_a;:n,_ Road 

Bar-.g%:~':-5&9' 91?; »

{BY  "(3i'.1{{'.-"., l".Iv|LlV.;\'7|.ll.a'-!:I.li5s'.'5'
1. __ Stair.-. 

V   3! AiI'1301*- P011"
   .. ..... .. 7

" = Sic. R'.%Z'ihi"v'aEsubrafi'nafi37?u'fi
Age-4:! about 3.8 years
,._v'Na, 137. Bharathinagar, Gandhi Road
,. Vfinnapparapalyaln, Pudur (PO)
vv...T1'rupur--641 652.  Respondents


This Criminal n-rtiti :1. is mad. I_m.c.1e1*
praying to reveme and set aa’de the order dated O6}O3.”£0O4,”.

passed bf; L’: Prl.City Tivil & Sessions -.1i.2_dge.”‘Ba:1gJgre.,”inV ‘

Cri.R.P.No.286/2003, by cunrsnning.zhe_om1ea~ c1at;’ed’; »17;o.6;2oo:3.*

‘passed by {V ACMM, Bangalore, in C.C.!*e’e.83%,i–‘.?.-_QO1.,, themby

discharge petitioner for offences levelled a ga£i1st’h_im etucf Tr ‘
Thia petition coming onTo’r..final ‘hezifing thié A«ja3’.3«rv._”tl”:<_:=,'l» I
made the féiicrwifigs ' '
The pctitio'né._1'*':%"* » ' " as adctnsed in
C-. C.!.No.8356[2001, ftirvhhfiijvvscfifcnoe punishable

M, _f N Ad_d1.C.M.M.,


anus: .;.-ec*.i:o11}jT4'~£)6 'EPC3-L, "'0.-11"-Vl1


Bfiilgfilfifii, has “=titiG1- ‘


undgér 4Ub’ ” ‘ iTr”i”_’:;»

2″.” Thevvbifisf for disposal of petition are

a». feL’cn.-.7 :-

ri~1*._. ‘ ………….1….. ……..–. .,’..
Ali’; i!._’.I LILI ‘ Pal:-I.\n..¢\.I. vstsvzu Ivan…

._ fi§r””stitching garments as per ‘pmuuau d””””s

complainant For this purpose, E-respondent

.. ‘gi{Icn to petitioner 17,3182 meters of cloth for stitching.

VV petitioner while returning stitched clothes did not naturn

F entize quantity. Then: was shortage of 790 pieces, cost of

which is Rs.’77,080/ –. The II-respondent. filed a_oo:Inplai_nt

N. .4

under 0-estien 200 (2.59. .. 11:. 1.»; ed M

_,;:__ _.1 …; .-.a.:.«.

the in net to juri.-sui uuutu E-‘C-live ii .1’c15{3–}.. ”

Cr.P.C?.. e juristiictionai police ai¢i’terbi.nivjee’iigé1i_io11″eubinifléfi

chmgesheet against petitioner fer ‘Tlle 0

petitioner pleaded for _bef<ire_ The
learned Magistrate on': doculiientie filed along
with chargesheet, "cali.f'f:vv'..;v-ifisi;cl1a1g(, and held
there is *ag:afa.__i11s__i 'fiame change under

section questioned this onier in

by * iviagistrafe and dismissed

R'.._fI5.NVe.286i2Qn3 by order dated 06.08.2004. Theiefore.

' before this Court.


‘ve h’ai”rl leaf-“ed C4′.’r”u.i.’|””i mi’ “uuu-1″I’ Eiuu

A HCGP for Hespondent.

4. The learned Counsel for petitioner relying on



I’-1′-nun’; Run ,C!n:i~n-u1u’a & nnn uarr 3:3 ‘_I5_:_ ‘_


4 r-\\. ../,,..,

Chamirajimo Angie (‘is oihers eie, repofied-iii~ V-.1 :..g71?J_’_”1£:.eu b

780, has contended ‘facts hi

constitute a civil wrong, theieforeg’ o

breach of trust am wanting. charges

are liable to be quasheo…

5. The of Delhi us.

Gyan Dezgi :;:;.e’f§é¢V?)[t)tJ) 3 sec: 769, has held
Whe1i__ under section 482
C1r.l3–.v_(‘.’..,._ exercise such powers only in

exceptional and r.:4ieee.V

the hand, facts narrated above would prime

‘ entrustment. of plopcrty to petitioner and

” of property by petitioner. In these

ciitguineieilces, no fault could be found with trial Court for

V. x ‘fra’1nii1g charge for an offelioe punishable under section 406



is d

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