Karnataka High Court
Ninganagowda And Others vs Smt. Shantavva on 24 June, 2000
Equivalent citations: 2000CRILJ3749, ILR2000KAR3108, 2000(5)KARLJ91
Author: B.K. Sangalad
Bench: B.K. Sangalad
ORDER
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 20-7-1998 passed by the Munsiff and JMFC, Byadagi in P.C. No. 40 of 1995. The petitioners are the accused and the respondent is the complainant. She filed a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr. P.C. before the JMFC, Byadagi. The learned Magistrate referred the matter under Section 156(3) of the Cr. P.C. for investigation. The Police filed the 'B' report. Being not satisfied with the 'B' report, the respondent filed the protest application.
2. Mr. Anand Navalgimath, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that such protest application which is not in the form of the complaint is not tenable. On the other hand Sri D.G. Mogali, learned Counsel for the complainant submitted that it is a futile exercise to rewrite once again the complaint in detail. Protest application means the whole complaint has to be looked into. I found there is some force in this submission. It is not necessary to rewrite the same points written in the complaint. At the time of the evidence if it is spoken by the complainant, it is sufficient. Mere technicality should not weigh too much in the mind of the Court. The substantial justice should be the object. With this observation, the revision stands disposed of.