AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard Sri K. Venkataraman holding brief of Sri S.N. Hatti, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
This is a petition u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking the quashing of proceeding Special Case No. 16 of 1997, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore based on the complaint made by Lokayukta.
It is well-settled principle of law that u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the power under the said Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is to be exercised very sparingly and only in the cases where from the prima facie reading of the FIR, or complaint and the allegations made therein taken on their face value or if established, do not disclose or make out any offence, or that the FIR, or complaint is frivolous, vexatious, the FIR, or complaint may be quashed. That if the allegations, FIR, or complaint prima facie are not shown to be making out the case amounting to offence of which cognizance has been taken by Magistrate of this Court, can or may exercise its inherent powers u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words if the applicant in application u/s 482, Criminal Procedure Code, fails or is unable to show that the allegations in the FIR, or complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken, then the matter should be left for trial and decision on merits after trial and inherent powers u/s 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, are not exercisable, as laid down in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, . Reference may also be made to the decisions in the cases of Dhanalakshmi Vs. R. Prasanna Kumar and Others, , Pratibha Rani Vs. Suraj Kumar and Another, , Mohamed Iqbal Madar Sheikh and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra, and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shri Pirthi Chand and another, .
In the present case the petitioner has failed to make a case for exercise of power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as the copy of the FIR or complaint has not been produced before this Court, for perusal examination by this Court. What has been urged is that there is no reliable material to establish the charges or the alleged offence. This is as such not a case for exercising the power u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
In this view of the matter this petition is hereby dismissed as being without merits.