IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2002 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE N.S. VEERABHADRAIAK CRIMINAL PETITION NO:2819/89 C/W. CRL.P. NO:3007/98 BETWEEN: 1. Aswathanarayan, Major, S/o.B. Muniswamappa, R/o.No.4, 4th cross, lst Main, Byatarayanepura, Bangalore-560 026. 2. Lathief, Major, Nanjappa Layout, Tilaknagar, Bangalore. a PETITIONERS IN CRL,.P:2819/99 1. K, Siddame2lappa, S/o.K. Kempaiah, Kottalwavadi village, Chamarajanagara ‘Taluk, Mysore District. 2. Somu © S, Somalingappa S/o.Siddamallappa, Kotte!awadi village, Chamarajonagar Taluk, Myeore Dietrict. cee PETITIONERS IN CRL.P:3007/99 (fy Sri S.R. Shinde, Adv.) ANI 1. G.S. Suresh, S/o.Late G.M. Shankar Rao, B/o.Nc.59/2, Dickenson Road Cross, Bangalore - 560 042.2. The State Public Prosecutor High Court of Karnataka, Bangalore. ee RESPONDENTS COMMON IN BOTH CASES (By Sri H.N, Srinivas Anand, Adv. for Rel, Sri B.C, Muddappa, ASPP fur 8-2.) These Criminal Petitions are filed u/s.482 Cr.PC by the Advocate for the petitioners praying to set aside the order dt.6.9.99 passed by Uke iV Add1.CMM, Bangalore in PCR if0.896/99 and the FIR sent by Ulsoor P.S., Bangelore. These Criminal Petitions coming on for final hearing this day, the Court passed the following: ORDER: In these two petitions, the petitioners have sougnt for quaziing of the proceedings in PCR No.696/92 on tie file of the IV Addl. CMM, Bangalore, referring the matter u/s.156(3) Cr.PC 2. The complainant suresh filed a ‘complaint against the petitioners and two others fur the offences u/s.406, 420, 324, 506, 120 r/w Sec.34 IPC on the allegations that A-4 introduced A=1 to A-3 to the complainant and he entered into an agreement dated 7.8.1985 to start Granite export. business by quarrying from the land of A-2 and received a substantial amount and that the complainant has also paid an amount ofRs.60,000/by cash and = another = num_— of Ks.1,00,000/by cheque to A~1 in respect of the cancellation of the agreement. The sccused 2 & 3 having agreed to permit the compla ant to carry out the Granite business, collected money from the complainant and eold the granites «without his knowledge. On the said allegation, the complaint was filed which came to be referred for investigation u/s.156/3) Cr-PC. It is this referring of the matter to the police is now questioned. The learned counsel Sri S.R. Shinde for the petitioners vehemently contended that absolutely there are no materials against the petitioners and at the most it is only A-1 who has veceived the money is responsible. Therefore, prayed to quash the proceedings. 4, The learned Addl. State Public Prosecutor for the respondent No.2 has contended that the pleadings of the complaint makes clear that there is a prima facie case and the mere referring the matter for investigation is notliable to be quashed in the light of the various Judgments of the Supreme Court, and prayed to dismiss the petition. 5. Heard both sides. It is a well settled principles “that when ‘the matter is referred for investigation u/s.166(3) Cr.PC, normally, the Court should not interfere and in order to quash the proceedings if no case is made out, even by taking into consideration its face value, the Sourt has to interfere. | But in this case, on ‘going through the complaint, it appears that there ace specific allegations against A-1, A-2 and A-3 and the ullegation against A-4 is Ua it is he who introduced the complainant to the A-l, Af amd A-S. Therefore, in case if the charge sheet were to be filed, he will also be oeponsible for such acts by reason of Sec. 34 TPC. Therefore, interfering with the investigation by the Police at this stage does not arise.6. Accordingly, 1 do not find any merits in these petitions and the same are ‘dismissed. Sd/- | Judge Plt