Sri.R.Chandrasekhar vs State By Town Police Station, on 15 November, 2018

[Cites 4, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri.R.Chandrasekhar vs State By Town Police Station, on 15 November, 2018

Bench: P.S.Dinesh Kumar

                        1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018

                     BEFORE:

 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.S.DINESH KUMAR

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.7156/2018

BETWEEN:

SRI R CHANDRASEKHAR
S/O M RAMAIAH
No.212, I FLOOR
CHAMPAKADAMA DEFENCE COLONY
KODIGEHALLI, SAHAKARA NAGAR
BANGALORE - 560 092.              ..PETITIONER

(BY SRI PRAKASH G R, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE BY TOWN POLICE STATION
       TUMKUR - 572 102
       REPRESENTED BY APP,
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
       BANGALORE - 560 001.

2.     SRI T C BASAVARAJU
       S/O LATE C CHIKKANNA
       AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
       No.899, TUDA LAYOUT
       NEAR HMS SCHOOL
                          2




     SIRA GATE,
     TUMKUR - 572 103.           ..RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI S RACHAIAH, HCGP FOR R-1)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN
CR.No.165/2018 BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT-TOWN
POLICE, TUMKUR AGAINST THE PETITIONER ON THE
COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT
BEFORE THE PRINCIPAL CIVIL JUDGE (SR.DN.) AND
C.J.M., TUMKUR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE
UNDER SECTIONS 420 AND 506 OF IPC.


    THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:


                      ORDER

Heard Shri G.R. Prakash, learned advocate for the petitioner and Shri S. Rachaiah, learned HCGP for the State.

2. Second respondent registered an FIR in Crime No.165/2018 on 12.07.2018 in Tumkur Town Police Station against the petitioner alleging commission of 3 offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC.

3. It is alleged in the complaint that petitioner gave certain assurances that complainant's son would be taken as an `Actor' in the film proposed to be produced by the petitioner. It is further alleged that complainant had paid a sum of Rs.75,00,000/- and said amount was transferred by way of RTGS. When the promise was not fulfilled, the complainant sought for refund of the amount and he was threatened with dire consequences.

4. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the complaint is false. He argued that the matter is purely civil in nature and does not require any investigation by the police. Accordingly, he prayed that FIR be quashed.

5. Admittedly, complaint has been lodged with aforementioned allegations. The said allegations require investigation by the police. The veracity of the grounds urged in support of this petition will have to be examined by the investigating agency based on the material placed by the parties. Hence, no ground made out to interfere by exercising power under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure.

6. Resultantly, this petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

7. In view of the dismissal of the petition itself, I.A.1/2018 does not survive for consideration and the same is also dismissed.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE SBN

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court