Karnataka High Court
P. Varadaraya Shenoy vs Latha Suvarna on 14 August, 2018
Author: John Michael Cunha
Bench: John Michael Cunha
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF AUGUST 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3700 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
P. VARADARAYA SHENOY
S/O LATE RAMANATH SHENOY
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R/AT NO 03-10-810, KANDETTU ROAD,
BIKERNAKATTE, MANGALORE - 575005
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI: PRAKASH SHENOY P, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. LATHA SUVARNA
W/O LATE PRAVEEN KUMAR SUVARNA
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/A "TREESHA"
NEAR KARNATAKA BANK ADMN OFFICE,
NEAR PUMPWELL CIRCLE,
MANGALORE - 575002
ALSO AT : NAGAPPA COMPOUND
ATTAVARA, MANGALORE - 575002
2. RITHIN SUVARNA
S/O LATE PRAVEEN KUMAR SUVARNA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/A "TREESHA"
NEAR KARNATAKA BANK ADMN OFFICE
NEAR PUMPWELL CIRCLE
2
MANGALORE - 575002
3. NITHIN SUVARNA
S/O LATE PRAVEEN KUMAR SUVARNA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
R/A "SANAA" MANJUSHA LAYOUT
KADRI TEMPLE NEW RD
MANGALORE -575004
... RESPONDENTS
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO
a. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.04.2018 REJECTING THE
APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER U/S 91 OF CRPC
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.296/2016 PENDING ON THE
FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND C.J.M.,
MANGALORE; b. QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12.04.2018
SETTING ASIDE OBJECTIONS TO THE APPLICATION FILED BY
THE RESPONDENTS U/S 317 OF CRPC IN C.C.NO.296 PENDING
ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND
C.J.M., MANGALORE; c. DIRECT THE LOWER COURT TO ISSUE
PROCESS TO THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES MENTIONED IN
THE APPLICATION U/S 91 TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS RELATING
TO RESPONDENTS SOUGHT IN THE SAID APPLICATION.
THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER
The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the order dated 12.04.2018 in C.C.No.296/2016 passed by the II Addl. Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Mangaluru.
3
2. By the said order, objection to the application filed by the complainant is rejected, which means the application is still under consideration before the court below. The complainant had absolutely no locus-standi whatsoever to oppose the said application filed under Section 317 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the learned Magistrate was justified in rejecting the said application. Hence, no interference is called for under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE psg*