C MADHU Vs. B V MANJUNATHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. is filed for setting aside the order dated 22.11.2011 passed by the learned I Addl. C.M.M., Bangalore, directing issuance of summons to the petitioners in respect of the offences punishable under Sections 494, 495, 497, 193, 196, 199, 500, 506 and 114 read with . of the I.P.C.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the trial court could not have directed issuance of summons particularly in the absence of there being compliance of the provisions of Sections 195 and .0 of the Cr.P.C. inasmuch as, according to the petitioners' counsel, in respect of the offences alleged to have been committed in relation to a court proceeding, the mandatory provisions of Sections 195 and .0 ought to have been followed and in the absence of that, issuance of summons to the petitioners cannot be sustained in law. It is also argued alternatively that, at best, the complaint may indicate certain offences being alleged against A-1 and A-2 only and not against the other petitioners.

(3.) THEREFORE, in my opinion, the trial court could not have directed issuance of summons to the other accused, who are petitioners-2 to 8 before this court. Hence, it is in the interest of justice that the proceedings requires to be quashed as against petitioners-2 to 8 before this court.