—— I IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA CIRCUIT 13ENCI I AT DI-IARWAL) DATED THIS THE 2O DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2011 BEFORE THE IION’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.10792/20 I I BETWEEN: Basavaraj So. Varnan Path. Age:49 years, 0cc: Real Estate Business, Rio. Plot No.28. IT Cross. Ilanurnan Nagar. Belgaum. Belgaum District. PETITIONER (By Shri Narayan 0. Rasalkar. Advocate) AND: I. Sri B.G.Patil. Police Sub Inspector. Market Police Station, Belgaum. 2. Sri. Ramangouda A. Hatti, Police Inspector. Market Police Station. Belgaum. 3. Shri. Shivasharanappa. So. Sharanappa Kusnoor. Sub Registrar. DC Campus, Belgaum. 4. The State of Kanuitaka. Rep. by Special Public Prosecutor, 0 2 Circuit Bench. Karnataka I ugh Court. I)hanvad. RIiSPON1MtNTS (B) Shri.Raviraj C.Patil, Advocate lbr respondent No.3. Shri Anand K.Navalgimath. High Court Government Pleader 11w respondent No.4) (Respondent Nos. I and 2 -. notice served.) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure seeking to quash the order dated 30.11 .2011) and Criminal proceedings initiated in C.C.No.1206!2010 by the JMEC II. Belgaurn and also the charge sheet dated 03.07.2010 filed h> the Police Inspector. market yard police Station, Belgaum on the basis of the complaint dated 10.06.20 10 registered by the complainant in Crime No.153/20 10. This petition coming on for admission this day. the Court made the following: ORDER The learned counsel for the petitioner would take this Court through the elaborate sequence of events as disclosed in the sy nopsis of the criminal petition. Notices having been served on the respondents, the counsel for the respondents are present. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had earlier lodged a complaint against the Sub-Registrar. Belgaum and his staff in respect of a demand for illegal gratification, in respect of which the Lokayukta had initiated action and a case is pending against. the Sub-Registrar and..his.stalt During..the pendency of the S 4. ., same, the petitioner had an occasion to seek registration of a document subsequently. The Sub-Registrar and his staff members who were aware that the petitioner was the complainant in the criminal ease being tiled against them and in order to wreak vengeance against the petitioner. though the petitioners document was almost registered, he was called back and physically assaulted and he was illegally detained in the store room of the Sub- Registrar’s Office and they continued to assault him. It is only on the’ intervention of the general public that he was rescued and he was thereafter taken to hospital and admitted therein. In spite of the incident being witnessed by several members of the general public. the Sub-Registrar and his staff have lodged a false complaint of the alleged attempt on the part of the petitioner to tender illegal gratification, even though the entire process of registration had been completed. and there being no possibility of such an eventuality. Apart from the above sequence of ei’ents, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned counsel would submit that substantial questions of law would arise for consideration. which requires the present criminal petition to be admitted and the interim order granted earlier to be continued, pending a decision on the substantial questions of law. namel>. whether a criminal case could 4 have been registered when there was a pending criminal case at the instance of the present petitioner against the Sub-Registrar and his stalt who have onl> out of sheer vengeance had initiated the present case against them. 3. Secondly. it is contended that outside the Metropolitan areas of Mumbai, Delhi and Calcutta only the Deputy Superintendent of Police is competent to investigate a case against a person under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and therefore in the present ease on hand, an officer lesser in rank than the Deputy Superintendent of Police having investigated the ease. would vitiate the cntire proceedings. He would ftirther contend that this Court acting under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 1973. is vested with ample power to quash the entire proceedings and therefore it is appropriate that the present petition be entertained. 4. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances in the opinion of this Court, even if there are substantial questions of law that are raised. it would he more appropriate lhr the petitioner to urge the same before the trial Court in which the proceedings are pending. [he stage for arguing 11w discharge is yet to arrive and therefore the petitioner has prematurely appeared before this Court seeking to quash the proceedings. it is more appropriate for the petitioner to address the trial Court on all the contentions that are sought to he raised. Notwithstanding the fact that this Court could interfere in such cases, in the opinion of this Court that no such exercise is warranted having regard to the facts and circLllflstalIceS. The learned counsel seeking to place reliance on a decided case in Criminal Petition No.378612009 disposed of on 31.8.2010 also cannot be pressed into service, as there can be no precedent in criminal matters which turn on the particular facts and circumstances of’ each case. Accordingly the present petition is disposed of’ with liberty to the petitioner to urge all contentions before the trial Court at the appropriate stage. Sd/ JUDGE Mrk/