IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No. 9847 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
1. SHANKAR MURTHY S/O RAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS R/AT NO.3, RATHNA DEEPA APARTMENTS GROUND FLOOR, FLAT NO.2, 12TH MAIN ROAD, MATHIKERE BENGALURU 560054 2. V VENKATESHA S/O VENKATARAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, APC-7, KARP MOUNTED COMPANY JAKY QUARTERS LALITHA MAHAL ROAD MYSORE CITY- 570 001.
3. NARASIMBE GOWDA @ SOMA S/O VENKATARAMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.19/1, 5TH MAIN BAPUJI NAGAR BENGALURU – 560 026.
4. NARAYANA S/O NARASIMHEGOWDA @ SOMA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.19/1, 5TH MAIN BAPUJI NAGARA BENGALURU – 560 026 5. SMT. ANASUYA W/O NARASIMHEGOWDA @ SOMA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.19/1, 5TH MAIN, BAPUJI NAGARA BENGALURU – 560 026.
... PETITIONERS (By Sri. PARASHURAM R HATTARAKIHAL, ADV.) AND 1. T.N.GOVINDARAJU S/O LATE T.R. NARAYANAGOWDA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, OCC RETIRED TECHER NEW STREET, TALAKADU VILLAGE, T NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT 571124 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER TALAKADU POLICE STATION T NARASIPURA TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT 571124 REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE 560 001.
... RESPONDENTS (By Sri.MOHAN KUMAR.D, ADV. FOR R1 SRI.VIJAYAKUMAR MAJAGE, ADDL.SPP FOR R2) THIS CRL.PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.363/2017 IN PCR.NO.44/2017 ON THE FILE OF THE CIVIL JUDGE AND JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE FIRST CLASS, T.NARASIPURA, MYSURU DISTRICT WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-B TO THE PETITION.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Heard learned counsel for petitioners and learned Addl. SPP for respondent No.2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 is absent.
2. This petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.363/2017.
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that previous to lodging of the private complaint, petitioner No.3 himself had filed a complaint alleging that the complainant has been damaging the property and therefore, the instant complaint is a sequel to the said complaint and ulteriorly motivated. Further it is contended that there is a delay in initiating the proceedings against the petitioners.
4. Both the above contentions, in my view, cannot be valid grounds to quash the proceedings. Since the averments made in the complaint and the sworn statement prima facie disclose the ingredients of the above offence, I do not find any justifiable reason to quash the proceedings.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE ln.