IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9th DAY OF JANUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4296 OF 2018 Between:
Sai Ramakrishna Karuturi, S/o Surya Rao, Aged about 51 years, Residing at 9/56, 8th Main, 1st Cross, Uppar Palace Orchard, Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru – 42. …Petitioner (By Shri.Santosh S Nagarale, Advocate) And:
1. State by Sadashivanagar Police Station, Bengaluru City. Represented by S.P.P., High Court Building, Bengaluru – 01.
2. Kumari Smiriti Khaitan, D/o Murari Lal Khaitan, Aged about 23 years, Residing at 32/A, New 46, RMV Extension, 8th Main, Near Food World, Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru City – 560 080, Karnataka. …Respondents (By Shri. S.Rachaiah, HCGP for R1) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.24/2018 registered by the Sadashivanagar Police Station for the alleged offence punishable under section 354(a)(2) and 506 of the Indian Penal Code on the file of the VII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru.
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Heard Shri.Santosh S.Nagarale, learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri..S.Rachaiah, learned HCGP for the State.
2. Petitioner has challenged F.I.R.No.24/2018 registered on 19.02.2018 in Sadashivanagar Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 354(A)(2) and 506 of IPC.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the complainant is a Manager of a Spa and the petitioner is a regular customer. Due to certain misunderstanding, the complainant has filed a false complaint.
4. Shri.Rachaiah, learned HCGP submits that the complaint contains specific allegations which require investigation.
5. Shri.Rachaiah is right in his submission that the complaint contains specific allegations which require investigation by the Police. In the circumstances, I see no reasons to interfere with the investigation by exercising power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
6. Resultantly, this Petition fails and it is accordingly, dismissed.
7. In view of dismissal of main petition, I.A.No.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of.
No costs.
bnv* ch.yn.
Sd/-
JUDGE