SOUMYA NAVIT Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri. K. Venkataraman holding brief of Sri. S. N. Hatti, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

(2.) THIS is a petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, seeking the quashing of Proceeding Spl. Case No. 16 of 1997, on the file of the Principal Sessions Judge, Bangalore based on the complaint made by Lokayukta.

(3.) IT is well-settled principle of law that under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, that the power under the said Section 482, Cr. P. C. , is to be exercised very sparingly and only in the cases where from the prima facie reading of the F. I. R. , or complaint the allegations made therein taken on their face value or if established, do not disclose or make out any offence, or that the F. I. R. , or complaint is frivolous, vexatious, the F. I. R. , or complaint may be quashed. That if the allegations, F. I. R. , 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 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In other words if the applicant in application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. , fails or is unable to show that the allegations in the F. I. R. , 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 under Section 482 of the Cr. P. C. , are not exercisable, as laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajanlal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 : (1992 Cri LJ 527 ). Reference may also be made to the decision in the case of Dhanlakshmi v. R. Prasanna Kumar, AIR 1990 SC 494 : (1990 Cri LJ 320); Pratibha Rani v. Suraj Kumar, AIR 1985 SC 628 : (1985 Cri LJ 817); Mohamed Iqbal Madar Sheikh v. State of Maharashtra, (1996) 1 SCC 722; State of Himachal Pradesh v. Prithechand, AIR 1996 SC 977 : (1996 Cri LJ 1354 ).