M D PEERSAB Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts reveal that the complainant Mallikarjun a resident of Tegginakeri village, submitted a complaint against accused No. 1 to the police for the offences punishable under Sections 285 and 336 IPC and also under Sections 3 and 7 of the Essential Commodities Act. It is alleged that on 17.5.2005 at about 10.30 a.m. when the complainant was in his house, he heard an explosion sound from the house of the petitioners and when he went inside their house, he found the 1st petitioner haying sustained burns and there were as many as six gas cylinders and while transmitting the gas from big gas cylinder to the small cylinders the fire accident had taken place, and the 1st petitioner and others sustained injuries. It is alleged that the petitioner had no authority to stock six gas cylinders and two small cylinders, In the circumstances, the complaint for the aforesaid offences was lodged and it came to be registered in Crime No. 94/2005 by Koppal Police. It is the registration of FIR that has been challenged by the petitioners by way of this petition.

(2.) I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and also the learned HCGP.

(3.) It is the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, that the complainant had no authority to lodge a complaint for the aforesaid offences as he is not an aggrieved person. Therefore, he makes a request to quash the proceedings registered against them.