RAMALINGAPPA MALLAPPA BALIGAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the arguments of the petitioner's counsel and also the HCGP for respondent No. 1. The respondent No.2, in spite of service of notice, did not choose to appear.

(2.) Though this matter is listed for admission, as the matter is heard on merits, taken up for final disposal.

(3.) The main contention of the petitioner in the petition is that, in the complaint given by respondent No.2, he has mentioned the timing of assault said to have taken place on 10.30 a.m. and at that time this petitioner was in the hospital and the respondent No.2 in his complaint claims to have been assaulted with an iron road. The nature of injuries said to have been suffered by him belie this and the very fact that while a complaint was filed by respondent No.2 initially against four persons, he having retracted most of the contents of the complaint, during the investigation none was arrested and the charge sheet was filed against only this petitioner which shows that the FIR was registered only at the insistence of respondent No.2 and that there was no truth in the same and even otherwise the complaint and subsequent proceedings are abuse of the process of law and hence ought to have been held as such and the same is liable to be quashed.