IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT BENCH AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE I4 DAY OF MARCH. 2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. JAGANNATHAN CRIMINAL PETITION NO.12101/2010 BET\\ ILN: 1. Shri S. M. Joshi S. o. Mudduranga Bhatta Joshi Agt: about 55 years, 0cc: Advocate R o. Abbigeri, now at near Shanbagh Hotel (i.tdag Dist. Gadag 2. SmL Premabai W o. Mudduranga Bhatta Joshi Au: about 80 years. 0cc: Nil P o. Abbigeri, Taluk Ron Dist. Gadag PETITIONERS (By Sri. P. N. Hatti, Adv.) AND: 1. Shekarappa S o. Shivappa Madinur Agc: 48 years, 0cc: Advocate and Agriculture R o. Kukanoor, Tal. Yalburga Dsr. Koppal 2. The State of Karnataka P b\ State Public Prosecutor Circuit Bench, Dharwad. RESPONDENTS (By Sri. Smt. S. M. Nadaf, Adv. for Ri Sri. Vinavak S. Kulkarni. HCGP) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P C. SEEKING THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE JMFC, YALBURGA IN P.C.NO.16/2007 WHICH IS REGISTERED AS C.C.NO.65/2010 DATED 19.10.2010 BE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF THE SAID CASL BE QUASHED. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY. THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Heard the Sri. P. N. Hatti, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Smt. S. M. Nadaf, learned Counsel for 1st respondent. For 2’ respondent, the High Court Government Pleader is directed to take notice. 2. The petitioners are before this Court seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated against them pursuant to the private complaint lodged by the 1st respundent. The complaint allegations are that, the petiioners said to have assaulted the complainant and also iireatened him. 3 3. Submissions of the petitioners’ Counsel is that, the 2’ petitioner is 80 years old woman and the order of the learned Magistrate does not indicate that the 2M petitioner had also assaulted the complainant. 4. Submission of the 1st respondent’s counsel is that the name of the I st petitioner has been mentioned in the complaint and the further allegation in the complaint is that, it is the let petitioner who is also invoJ ed himself in committing the acts of cheating etc., including creating false documents. 3. Having thus heard both sides and taking note of the complaint allegations and the order of the learned Magistrate, in my view, insofar as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, the allegations are not specific against her unlike the Pt petitioner arid therefore, the trial Court can be permitted to go on with the matter as far as the 1t pvtitioner is concerned. r 4 6. For the above reasons, in respect of the offences for which the trial Court has taken cognizance under Sections 465, 109, 504, 506 R/w Section 34 of IPC, the proceedings are quashed in respect of the 2nd petitioner and the same shall continue as far as the 1st petitioner is concerned. Sd/ JUDGE