Karnataka High Court
Campco vs The State Of Karnataka on 10 June, 2010
Author: B.Sreenivase Gowda
Bench: B.Sreenivase Gowda
BI Ti-E HIGH COURT OF' KARIMTAKA AT BANGALORE
man was 'rm mm m? or JUKE 201:) % i
Bgmm
mECENmM &GOGQA'V VV E
%'rn¢G asrzesocmsmge rm-~
nmpmszrrnnsvrrs
mumsmc DIREGI'OR&PR£fiIDi'3HT *
ormmco _
2 am P 1v.~,0'%% %
3:0 mm
mmeme mm<:m1z% ' %
mm) ABOUT59 s
assmzrw gr vammsm rowsm
_. merry
% '._nK nmmcjr
3 augzfixé.
" = AGED'-.fiBQ_E3'!'.-'5-=3YEARB
RESIDIHQAT DEVISADAH PO31' PUNACHA
' QR DIB'_Iu'KC'-'1'-574281 PETITIOITERS
% « am: smml, ADV ma ms. mmamsmzzs
mm swam or Kamarmxn
av mneawm mm P a
REPWEKIED BY ITS -
STATE PUBLIC PROBECUTOR
HIG8 COURT BUILl3I!!G8v
BABGALORE
2 DRL AHY
Aamnaaotrrvormm
géomrn: smxmxammmmnnxm '
mmm mm -682024
g Sm: sperm: emu, ECG?
§nALxAn.Anv1:~o1zR2) .% ; .A
TEES CRIMINAL P.F¢'I'I'I'I(.)I€"'IS" SECITON
482 OF THE CGDE QF PRAYNG TU
QUASH TI-IE =~.'§.G.N.O. 1?-312009 NOW
PENDING ON THE '11::-:.'§I3Dl}.C;IVEL JUDGE (BRDVH)
& CHIEF JUDIOIAIL. AND ALL
Funrmn mcewfinmcsa
THIS COMING FOR mmssxon
nnsmv, COIIRTMADE ma: mzwwme:
are armyad an aaclned in
% on the file ¢fII Addl. cm and Civil
F % §rnmrm- pmeeam of the ma case.
" ' Rap-ondxmt No.2 fled a pa-ivate complaint in PCR
M2:/2007 Idem the can and Civil Judge {Sr.Dn.),
%
Marwre ayimt the petitioners under Section 200 Cr.P.C.
fnrtheafianc:eapuni3mb1au:1tia.1'Secfinm409, 406 and
of me. The T:-ml Court mwamm the
P.C.Ho.21I2DD'7 refierr-ed the matter in the Eat T'
Polka: fir mveatimfion of the matter 'J
Cr.l".C. Tbs police :1-:gs&m':'ng
Ho.31]2008 and arm' irweotgating
tn the Court stn1:'.rg that the H
3. The
appfimtion Trial Court am-
recaardfi talmn ' and
rcgfitserred mg. C%;<:.zi¢.i%3/2009 and fanned process
to ..... _ _ by flm "me
fir qusslrm of further
_ im$I~om;c..E¢T.173/2009.
A % 1 Canmel an the pctitianuis submit
is 3 Multi Emu: co-opemwe Society mm:
Co-o'pernn'va Sociatiau Act wged in
provfled by its Bye-lawn. According to the
%
complaint, in b@ the ca-ord.inat:lng «ii on the "cf
the business danethraugh it, it is anfiflad in 6% of
aha:-gen ofcoeoa Bean and the amount due to it .,
meme punhhable under mm of
IPC. He aubmita that complaint
do not oomtituiae alleged, and
oftlm
ofihmn and ' and thc~.raf'ore '
respondent herein aubmts that the
/} duped him and oommitmd. an act of "breach of mm, mauppmpa-"union and cheafing .v.V13'i$:i?;is'hablo unc1e:~sectsana4a5,+o9and42oorI1=ca:xamere %/