IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF DECEMBER 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR CRIMINAL PETITION No.7691 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
1. SRI. G.SRINIVASAPPA, S/O GURAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/A ANJANI EXTENSION, CHINTAMANI CITY-563125.
2. SRI. N.G.SAIBABA @ N.G.SAINATH, S/O GOPALAKRISHNAIAH SETTY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, CHINTAMANI CITY-563125.
3. SRI. SYED ILLIYAZ, S/O SYED AKBAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, CHINTAMANI CITY-563125.
4. SRI. SHIVANNA, S/O M.NARAYANAPPA @ KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/A BUKKANAHALLI, AMBAJUDURGA HOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK-563125.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NARAYANA SWAMY P.M., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY CHINTAMANI TOWN POLICE, CHINTAMANI-563125.
2. SMT. D.K.THULASAMMA, D/O VEERABHADRADHYA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NAGARATHPET, CHINAMANI CITY-563125, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT.
SMT. D.K.THULASAMMA,, D/O VEERABHADRADHYA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, R/A NO.1597, NAGARAJA BEEDI, PUNGANUR TOWN CHOTTOOR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH-517247.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO (A) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.08.2019, IN CRIMINAL REVISION NO.81/2012, PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKABALLAPUR, SITTING AT CHINTAMANI. (B) CONSEQUENTLY QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN C.C. NO.610/2012, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT CHINTAMANI, FILED FOR OFFENCE U/S 464, 465, 466, 468, 470, 471, 420, 120-B OF IPC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State.
2. The petitioner is before this Court aggrieved by the order passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.81/2012 by the Court of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Chikkaballapur sitting at Chintamani, wherein, the petitioners had called in question the order of learned Magistrate taking cognizance and further directing investigation by the respondent-police.
3. It is contended that the respondent-police have filed ‘B’ report and that the complainant lodged a complaint against the Investigating Officer before the Higher Authority and pursuant to the same, Superintendent of Police directed further investigation by the respondent – police and pursuant to the further investigation, an additional report under Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C has been filed.
4. The same was opposed by the petitioners on the ground that it amounts to re-investigation. The only course that is open to the complainant is to file a protest to the ‘B’ report said to have been filed by the police.
5. The said contention has been negated by the trial Court by placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Vs. Aruna Devi and Others reported in (1995) 1 SCC 1.
6. The revisional Court is also in agreement with the findings rendered by the trial Court.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioners is unable to demonstrate any error in the reasoning set out by the revisional Court to reject the revision petition.
Accordingly, no grounds are made out. Petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE GH