CRL.P.i;Ib,_1064!2008
'm rm.-e-. Hm: ccunfr cw AT % %
DATED THIS THE 280 DAY 0FAAPRl.L.:g'{V5.(i§
-THE .HON'BLE Dr. JUSTIC-5E j
' BETWEEN:
MRs.AMMu I
AGED-ABOUT 24 vmzs
W./0SRI.GURUMU'i?FHYV_v' x
R [.0 TALAGAV£\R£;LM -VI'LLAGE %
KAIVARA Hem-I+k% i
C1i¥N'PAMA.NIT5§LU'Ks'v « k if;
cHIKKAE§+'ALLAHJi2A.D1mf-..?
'PE.'P1'-l'IONE.R
(By Sri;G_SUKL'.D&fl§Afi';§:£DV.fi
AND:
1
ms s'mTE~ ~ M A
. BY JNDI: POLICE3 STATION
I!'{DIRANAGA'R.,V_
5_,c;Ng_3ALQRE,33 5 ..... ..
% . R%EPm':sEmEn%B¥%THE
V' PUBLjIC~ iPRCI"S~ECUT'OR
'
. X BANGALORE; '
VENKATA SWAMY
AGE;-D':$;BQLPF
' .% VS/0_'L.fl'I'-E SR-I=:SRIKONNAI.L:APPA
=s1§a>s;--1ExAR V
A«,}.E,r;;AaoLr'rao YE-_.A..Rs
s/o 2l;.A'I'E sm xmsum
% SR1 MANJU %
AGED' ABQLFP 321. .1"-sszas
$10 sm MU'NIR'A=.JU
I0
SR1 Nt1i'<i\SiNiHA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
s/To SR1 MUNIRA-JU
U!
6 SR1 ASHWATH
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
VS/O SR1 KONNALLAPPA
7 SM!' MAIEE
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
W/O SR! VENKATA SWAMY
RESPONDENTS 2 'l'o.'A.RE RAT 1'; V
NEW BINNAMANGALA”EXTEHSLEQH, Lj AA 2
INDIRANAGAR, = V
BANGALORE-.38, % k’: 0’22 ,4
1*}-us CRL.’P,Vl{S fé:LE5 82 BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
PETITIONER %p:=.AY:1~1c3 ‘r:;-igxmmzs E-EONBI.-E comm’ 9.4.4.? BE PLEASED TO
QUASH THE ORDE”FiDT.’3 P985-ED BY THE P.O.F’l’C-III, AND ADDL.
«.0
1.1 “.
S…._l, M_A.YO: .HQI1I.-I.-‘ UBEET BAN’-£?3..4.LQRE DERECTENG THE ISSUANCE OF”
summons ‘AND QUAéil7’P L1. FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN s.c
“.».
NO,(_31′?,l!.)4, PEHDINVG mm}, .-1.1-an ADDL. s.J, 1’v1¢’\’I’G HALL
UNIT, BANGALORE. V. % ‘
(.*.RIvM!NAI; PETETION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION. THIS DAY,
-5′ run ;v|rp I.’ \.Il.lIJ\J”U’l
,, Inn’ fir; rant I f\’IlI’l:’I(‘IJ:_
.pv.u-4.».-n.—..
95.12.2411!
fl
_ =3-1.{‘;:1.2%8 mane in S.C.1’I6.3i7]” “G4 on the iii: of Fast ‘Track Court
–. ..
~no.’I”ii,’ Eviayohaii Unit. Bangaiom, for the oflicnocs puniahablc under
sections 143, 147, 143 and 307 read with Section. 149 oflPC.
1′
L,
CRL. P. No: 1064 1 2008
2. Heard arguments for final disposal.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner suhxnitaithe
4 Ivy
3……’ }’.Sl”&G’§1S.”
‘ ‘ .. … …….-…. ‘_;” ….._ ‘._».__’V._’~_:;;.. ~ ..’a}.1 2.,
M13.t’i.iI’aj’d is dead and utiici uuuuueii noun bate ihcln, i:(‘Ia.L Ill
annua-
S.C.No.3 1″I’i’ ‘ for the
commenced, the complaitlant as P.W.l
and P.W.2 and they have According to
P.Ws 1 and 2. thc ticihc married daughter or
Accused No.1 is nothing to do with the
alleged ofi’onceo;’ ‘fiL-.d”§an application under Section
319 of to the Accused No.1′: t_l_-.1-g1;t_._,
viz., __lU!cjee2t:;r .1’éyrce n’;=iL The learned &ssions Judge,
allc-‘we?! application and issued summons to Smtiviaiee. “w’]’o.
of Accused No.1 to face trial and also
‘ No.7 who is elder sister of Accused No.1
need henceforth and directed the prosecution to furnish
‘4 it ‘:’c*0fl”=°A address of the Proposed accused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the name of
‘V V “petitioner/proposed accused is Ammu and she was never called as
Maiee and at the time of alleged incident, the present petitioner was
L.
V.1’**’:1-54!’ htceg
CRL. P. No. 1064 I 9008
14 years and therefore. the learnt fissions J”*d§e.._”::eu ‘ss-sing
pmcess to the present petitioner solely on iof.’P,Ws.1
and 2. ._
E I …;…._-.¢4I A4531′ 1.1111′:-Iufs-if’: QIIA11 (hi?
On .|JUl1.l..l.I.DI.l. UIIJVI» I’ll?-l1\.{Ul .auuuu«.p I..*_,_u:1I. vvvys ya: I..4¢il.IJ–‘NI–Jv’\I\.t¢.gfsa.’D£”l’-“I
the investigating Ofiioer had ‘his: hi’ tlrt
Accused No.7 was not, the tvas not taken. note of-
However. at the time oi iP.lM’:s. have deposed that the
Accused the alleged offences and
the Accused” was also called as Maiee, is
msponsiblesnd illegality or infirmity in the impugned
older. * l
, –6.p [this tosmention that if the Accused No.7 who is
V’ t:.rial”is nothing’ do with the alleged offences. the Trial Court
orders on appreciation of evidence on mecond
Athelccjhclusion of the evidence on the” side of prosecution. Solely
-11. t._.– b§’|..1.. -1′ tee-;u1i.i.ug I-vtdl.-met: _f PJ.lIs,1 9…. 2, the ‘!’_rial (3-;n.I._rt
» -.{.;;.; .*_. ..1:…..,a.’…… +1…. .q.,.._…….: u. I-1 ……¢ ;.. _____ .. :. n….. .,……
» VJIWLE. I. “ll IaI.I.I.5 um Dbbllfifill IV”! I I: III ll-I. lull EU
iaenoeforth. it is also pertinent to mention that if P.’W’s.i and 2 were
to say that there was some other accused. viz., Accused No.1’s
daughter who was also Iesponsible for the alleged offences, the
L n
\–….._.–~
(J1
“-‘:eiV…-E. iio. io64i2oos
procedure is to make her as a covaocused, but she be brought
in place of the accused who is already facing Exec cppmcch of
the Presiding omccr of the Fast frraczc
from that the learned Trial auegc “tin:
proposed accused was 14 L’ lfths-.1
was the ma tn.-ml-. Ant w,ss- 3-“.3$Er-.p;.b’.e. % from the
i'”””i’i’1§ flint the the Accused No.1 and his
membersfor ittdfiis not necessary to dwell
upon the purpose of disposal of the
that the learned Trial Judge
No.7 from the case without passing
appmpiiate the petitioner in place of Accused
NO. ‘V _
“~ c 1 ..7__g:tp’is::’pertinent to mention that if all the material prosecution
H ‘ ed and if there is any puma’ their: case made as
petitioner. the prosecution would be at liberty to
application under Section 319 of Cr.P.C., and pray for
‘7-appropriate orders. At j1.u;etu,_, it 1, cctsc-,.. to ho]… ..hat the
I’
‘m:.ua”””h3e ‘*1 ‘ e 0 Jaw.
CRL.P.No.1064/2008
8. In the Insult, the petition is allowed and the onicr
… . .. …… . .._.. ….g,_….w .3 -7–…:…
-.13…- .,;,t.11,2r_1t.n.z mad; 1. ._, _.,.r~1«.».. 17 2004 on tr–mu-e~«;;M:?% ‘mar-k
bnv*