IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

$\mathbf{1}$

CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012

Before

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH

Criminal Petition No.11637/2011

Between:

Sri Ravi S/o Deva Naik. Aged about 47 years. Presently working as Circle Inspector of Police, Kollegal, Dist: Tumkur. PETITIONER $\mathcal{L}{\mathcal{A}}(\mathcal{A}) = \mathcal{L}{\mathcal{A}}(\mathcal{A})$

(By Sri.Mrutyunjay Tata Bangi, Adv.)

And:

Sri Shantolini Seemaov Fernandes. Aged about 44 yers, Residing behind Tahasildar's Office, Honnavar, Dist: Karwar. RESPONDENT $\mathcal{L}_{\text{max}}$

(By Sri. P.H. Gotkhindi, HCGP)

This Criminal Petition is filed under S.482 Cr.PC, praying to quash the proceedings on the file of AddI.JMFC, Kumta, in CC No.566/2010 under Sections 447, 451, 504, 506, 500 of IPC and the order passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Uttar Kannada, Karwar, passed in crl.Rev.Pet.No.1/2011 dated 26.8.2011, and etc.

The petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:

ORDER

This petition is filed praying to quash all the proceedings pending on the file of the Addl. JMFC, Kumta, in C.C.No.566/2010 directing issue of summons to the petitioner.

The respondent herein filed a private complaint $2.$ against the petitioner herein in P.C.No.228/2009 for the offence punishable under Sections 447, 451, 504, 506 and 500 of IPC. Later, the said complaint was converted into CC No.566/2010 on the file of the learned JMFC, Kumta and summons was issued to the accused. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner approached the learned Sessions Judge, Karwar, in Crl.Rev.No.1/11 and the revisional Court dismissed the same holding that there is prima facie material to take cognizance against the petitioner. Hence, this petition.

$3.$ Heard. $\overline{2}$

In para 17 of the order of the learned Sessions $\overline{4}$ Judge, it has been held that the learned Magistrate has followed all procedural aspects before taking cognizance, in as much as, sworn statement of the complainant has been recorded, which would make out prima facie case against the petitioner. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the respondent has filed complaint as a counterblast to wreak vengeance against the petitioner for registration of the case and seizure of the car belonging to the respondent along with liquor bottles.

$5.$ Though the learned Magistrate has followed the procedure prescribed under law while issuing summons and the learned Sessions Judge has upheld the said order, the records disclose the background for the respondent to initiate criminal proceedings against the petitioner which seems to be an afterthought for, the petitioner being a police officer had seized the car belonging to the respondent with huge quantity of liquor in it and registered case against the respondent for the offences under Sections 32 and 34 of

$\mathfrak{F}$

Karnataka Excise Act and the Deputy Commissioner of Excise passed an order imposing fine. In the circumstances, the impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioner seems to be to as a counter-blast to harass the petitioner.

$-4$

Hence, the impugned proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the respondent-complainant is quashed. The petition is allowed.

$\begin{array}{c} Sd/\JUDGE \end{array}$

$Sub/$