Soumya Navit Vs. State of Karnataka

- code of civil procedure, 1908. order 13, rule 7(2): [h.g. ramesh, j] return of document impounder for being insufficiently stamped and not admitted in evidence though order 13 rule 7(2) of cpc provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, chapter iv of the karnataka stamp act overrides the said provision. it is not permissible for the court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under chapter iv of the stamp act. -- karnataka stamp act, 1957.[k.a. no. 34/1957]. section 33(1): [h.g. ramesh, j] return of document which is impounded for not duly stamped and not admitted in evidence document produced by the plaintiff was insufficiently stamped -defendants application under order 13 rule 8 c.p.c., to impound the document trial court ordering impounding of the document held, as the document dated 06-11-2004 produced by plaintiff did not bear proper stamp duty, the document was liable to be impounded. though order 13, rule 7(2) of c.p.c., provides for return of document not admitted in evidence, chapter iv of the stamp act overrides the said provision inasmuch as a special enactment overrides a general enactment. having regard to the provisions of chapter iv of the stamp act, it is not permissible for the court or any other authority to return any document not duly stamped till it is dealt with as provided under the said chapter. - 3. it is well-settled principle of law that under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, that the power under the said section 482 of the criminal procedure code, is to be exercised very sparingly and only in the cases where from the prima facie reading of the fir, or complaint and the allegations made therein taken on their face value or if established, do not disclose or make out any offence, or that the fir, or complaint is frivolous, vexatious, the fir, or complaint may be quashed. 4. in the present case the petitioner has failed to make a case for exercise.....order1. heard sri k. venkataraman holding brief of sri s.n. hatti, learned counsel for the petitioner.2. this is a petition under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, seeking the quashing of proceeding special case no. 16 of 1997, on the file of the principal sessions judge, bangalore based on the complaint made by lokayukta.3. it is well-settled principle of law that under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, that the power under the said section 482 of the criminal procedure code, is to be exercised very sparingly and only in the cases where from the prima facie reading of the fir, or complaint and the allegations made therein taken on their face value or if established, do not disclose or make out any offence, or that the fir, or complaint is frivolous, vexatious, the fir, or complaint may be quashed. that if the allegations, fir, or complaint prima facie are not shown to be making out the case amounting to offence of which cognizance has been taken by magistrate of this court, can or may exercise its inherent powers under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure. in other words if the applicant in application under section 482, criminal procedure code, fails or is unable to show that the allegations in the fir, or complaint do not constitute the offence of which cognizance has been taken, then the matter should be left for trial and decision on merits after trial and inherent powers under section 482 of the criminal procedure code, are not exercisable, as laid down in state of haryana v bhajan lal. reference may also be made to the decisions in the cases of mrs. dhanalakshmi v r. prasanna kumar and others, pratibha rani v sura; kumar and another, mohamed iqbalmadar sheikh v state of maharashtra and state of himachal pradesh v pirthi chand and another.4. in the present case the petitioner has failed to make a case for exercise of power under section 482 of the code of criminal procedure, as the copy of the fir or complaint has not been.....