Karnataka High Court
Smt Sathyavathi vs M/S Nirman Shelters on 10 July, 2008
Author: Mohan Shantanagoudar
Bench: Mohan Shantanagoudar
- 1-
IN THE may-4 comm or KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 10*" any or JULY 2m
BEFORE :
THE HON'§.E MRJUSTICE Monarg $HAh%TA§§i}§b${>iJDAi§_: % « L
Smt. Sathyavathi
W/0 Vishwanath Redd}? I
Aged about 51 years ' __ E
Rfo 950.2171, "Rama Manor' ' '--
Opp Poiice Station " _
Bauga1ore----56O W4, 5;; = 4' _ if" . , ..Pctitioner
(By M] s, A§1v.,)
.....
'M}"s.--. Nin1i;an«v Shs1tczs ' }'«PVf;;-Ltgivév, its fiizeémr V. Lakshmingmyan 'V S/0 late Vcnkatappa "Aged about 60 ymrs 1\I'a's.*;.=":*.. 1, \?}L.I'€. Isiirman Bhavan '-KR. Road, Basavangndi _ B-an'galore--5=6() 004.
S10 lame H. Venkatappa V " Aged abmztfioyears N'o.'71, 'J.L.P3. Nirman Bhavan KR. Road, Basavangudi Bangalore-560 0134. ..Reaponde;1ts (By Sri S.M. Patel, Adv") u...
in This Criminai Pefition is filed] unéer §5:ct'i:t:nV.§-8§;V..V:C3':4.V;?.VC'.' praying to quash the order datw 4~9=-.-2006 ~ C.C.No.'259Q3_/2006 on the file of the I AC.Mfvé._., vide V<'_lp¢uri1eni'.' and quash the entire proceaeiirxgs in '~._C.C.N0;259f23.{20€}6 by V * quashing the complaint vide (3GGl1I"P.t'fJ§t.b5 on the fiie cs{ the {"ACMM., Bangalore .
This csimina: Petit;:§;;'~mm'ingV.§x::<rq;L'ac;:n5saio§; mg day, the Court made the following: ' . V ] " .. This fi' J'ng'V fcfflxfiafihing the proceedings in c.c.i~;o.25§§3;2Qda,p§:m1mg.'on the fik: of 1 Addl.(3.M.M., Court, .. 'The that the petitimner herein has was/2005 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore, X __ separate possemsion of Vane" us propert1cs' _ meafioaea' the plaint scheduic. In the said suit, an for injunction came: to be filed. By the order datcd T313 order Gf injunction came to be issuad in favour ..-;1f}the petitioner against her bmthers i..e., defendants 1 to 7 therein. Thcreafier, the petifioner herein filed an application \»/' -3- for iznpleading the rcspondants 1 and 2 herein in Liéfiniii; on myth of January 2006. The trial Court t-_§%' Q J the proposed defendants on «_ Tkiezf defendants viz., thc 1cspondenisVhemiai1 ~.
the civil suit on 1 A "
an older came to be by infiplcading the respondents herein.
3. ' « '" j « pgtifioner herein published a bwcan Herald Daily News the said public notice is produced 5: with the petition. The said public: certa1n' allegations against S Vt.i::t:-, hc¥iéi1i;"' 'V Thus, the rcspondtants having felt Tby §1::.se'V%v;_{- ;1:;;ic noticed issued by the pctitismcr, lodged the 'itfiéfom the Magistrate Court alleging oifenoe 'wider Saction 500 of IPC. The trial Court aficr the due pmcecium, issued pmcaess against the hemin who had got published the notixx: in the news V " This petition: is filed questioning the: said order and U"
V' Inenxtfliae -4- questioning the pmceedings pursuant in the said 'eaqf issuance of process.
4. It is contended on behalfipf fhef action ef the petitiener falls uxgdezj 9"' *' of Cr.P.C. Aeeerding to the the petitioner has made fait'1£1Hf'er Vf.smtecfing of her interest we for the * The learned counsel appearing ef v..IF:t:'2Svf;i'.éF1i{j{€i1tS, who inter alia eaniyende€i"ifia1;V{§;ee;§'§V c.§§iér V§r injunction agmnst the mspendgfmg 2 hereii; o.s.No.ie66/2005, and consequenflgrf could not have issued public .
' therein that the respondents hezein :sites to the public at large aocxmiing to their Niel} are cheating the public at large. 5;' .VV'_A"i'he public eotiee issued by the petitzkmer herein V' that the respondents herein are cheating the pubfie at V' by selling the propertiee and that they are making bogus " and falee statements. It is not in dispute that the suit was flied xw -5- by the petitioner agaiast her brothers only for separate possession at the first instance. M injunct1o' 11 is issued in favour of petitioner against --« .. only, restraining them fiom scfling figs hi in dispute that as on the date_u:f_ g1ast.of'o1dcr~oi' *' the respondents hemin were not' parties Thc impkaading application the respondents herein only ms On 3.3.2006 the summons herein in the suit. The the Civil Court on 15.:§;..2oc>e. 197 15.3.2006, the implcading appfiamtioo to imphzad the respondents _ hemizxgiévas Which means, as on the date of V. itotixza i.e., on 15.3.2006, the respondents herein v}¢c;'é'T..__1;cifi1sr.,_pa':fiés to the suit nor was there any order of V V' _ injuiietiozi' them. In this View of the matter, the action ' tho gegpéondcnm prima facie may not fall within the 9th to Section 499 of Cr.P.C. However, the said question to be gone into by the Cum' In" al Court in detaii afier the evidenoe. The observations made above are only \M _ 5 , based on pfima facic matcrial and for dispose} of only.
In View of the above, this ceumglges n¢t'fia§'V.a;gy: emgm the order passed by the Court ' the petitioner. No intcrfeztixeq; is cafwd for; v Ifeti_1Tiio.1v1 is:
accordingly dismissd. The is'%a.{m¢ted'A¢o proceed with the mattcr on 1aw;vs;ithout being influenced by any of the course ofthisorden *bk/"2.