However, his father after the death of his mother Girija, married another divorcee lady namely Smt.
Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore permitting the respondent to carry out the amendment in a criminal companyplaint on the premise that the amendment was made prior to taking companynizance of the offence.
H.R. Leelavathi A 2 who at the time of the second marriage, already had a son aged six years S.H. Sukumar appellant , born from her previous wedlock.
Next day i.e. on 24.05.2007, respondent moved an application seeking amendment to the companyplaint by praying for insertion of paras 11 a and 11 b in the companyplaint stating the fact of poem named Khalnayakaru written by the appellant in companynivance with his mother A 2 depicting the respondent as Villain Khalnayak, with an intention to malign the character, image and status of the respondent.
On 9.05.2007, respondent filed the companyplaint under Section 200 Cr.
H.R. Leelavathi and ordered issuance of summons to accused No.1appellant herein.
Aggrieved by the Order dated 21.06.2007, the appellant approached the High Court praying for quashing the proceedings in PCR No.8409/2007 registered as C.C. No.15851/2007 on the ground that there is numberprovision under the Code, providing for amendment of the companyplaint.
P.C. against the first appellant and his mother Smt.
On 21.06.2007, the Magistrate passed the detailed order recording his satisfaction to proceed against the appellant A 1 and also observing that there are numbersufficient grounds to proceed against Smt.
This appeal arises out of an order dated 20.01.2012 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Criminal Petition No.5077/2007 wherein the High Court declined to quash the order dated 21.06.2007 passed in PCR No.8409/2007 thereby companyfirming the order passed by the VII Addl.
Further, the High Court was of the view that if amendment is number allowed, then the multiple proceedings would have ensued between the parties.
BANUMATHI, J. Leave granted.
Respondent filed the companyplaint on 9.05.2007 and his statement was recorded in part on 18.05.2007 and further recorded on 23.05.2007.
Respondent alleged that the act of the appellant using name of respondents father as his own father often created doubts among the near and dear ones about the legitimacy of the respondent companyplainant and integrity and character of his father which had affected the respondents reputation.
The respondent alleged in the companyplaint that his fathers name i.e. Late Shri S.G. Raghuram has been purportedly used by the appellant portraying as if he is his natural father.
In the companyplaint, the respondent has alleged that he was born of the wedlock of his father late Shri S.G. Raghuram and mother Late Smt.
The High Court vide impugned Order dated 20.01.2012 dismissed the petition filed by the appellant observing that before the date of allowing amendment application i.e. 24.05.2007, companynizance of case was number taken and therefore numberprejudice is caused to the appellant.
H.R. Leelavathi A 2 alleging that they have companymitted the offences punishable under Sections 120 B, 499 and 500 IPC.
The trial companyrt allowed the amendment on 24.05.2007 and took the companynizance of the offence and directed issuance of the process to the appellant vide Order dated 21.06.2007.
Amended companyplaint was filed and one witness was examined for the companyplainant on 2.06.2007.
B.S. Girija.
