IN ms men COURT or KARNATAKA K x ;
Dated this the 9*" day of A' V '
BEFCRE: j
'1'!-IE uownm
Wm Psuuonm. .7§19.§f,2;Q§4§;}§:4hfi--RES1
BE"I'WEEN:__. 5:f ...-{. ' "
Aged a§L:ou.L » ' '
R'/0 Do¢ida:3ma11giV1@¢
Go1m'Hob1_i . _ '
Tumk:1r'I'aIuk = V ._
_Dist1'i«:-'t_ ' ...Petitioncr
. " C Jagadecsh, Advacatc)
Am: ~ ll]
»..----..._..
1 A The. to Govcmment
" Department of Law and
Pafiiamcntazy Affaixs
s Viflhmm Smidhza
' . _ Bangalore - 560 001
A 2% The Dimctor
Department of Prosecution
and Govt. Liflgatton, (Adam)
K H B Compicx. 6"' Floor
Cammxy Bhavan
K G Road
(By S113. Vecrappa,.A(A}Aj='_ " V 4 H _
This Writ Petition is filed uniigr Am 1c§s~.224_$' "
the Constitution of India, praying to. Aquash ci1Llo:mei:I1cnt
lcttcr dated 27-8-2007 vidzé-g "'Apnexure--B, 'ivss%;'cem¢gt'the following:
The wrrjt of ccrtiorari for
2007 as per AH]1£3.Xl1I'C*
B issuéd refusing to change the
Public
" 1 'V ivégléie---pctifioncr is the 0!W.ll£3I' of land bearing Sy.No.8,
situated at Doddasarangi Village, Tumlmr
. ' exist a dispute with regard to the cxistcmzxt of
on the eastern side of the said survey number. A
2(;!i:Vséi1'Ai'itigatican in this zegard is pending before the competent
VT Court The petitioner gave a complaint before thc.Ru1a1
Polict: Station, Tumkur, against one Siddaflingaiah and his
family members allcgng that they have iilcgally assaulted the
petitioner and his family members and attemptcad to kill them
\/
petitioners have seen the Public Prosecutor
accused and their Cmlnscl, talking to the thjeyv
used to go to hotel and take syiifiof
bringing to the notice of the autho1'i1jc3 a?«1z "
mpmsentations, no action frné;
representation was made. the
authoritiea to entrust Prosecutor.
The aaid Inquest the contrary, the
impugned cn(§ur'5§fisacn'ti.=A__is change the Public
Viigfitioncr to ccropemtc with
115111. ' j'n""a"l :casc could be disposed of.
Thercf«::$xnc," £116 this Conn.
4. Hayijzig 'ice-..g.;mntc;iii{$h,:'V'13:§V, V,__i1£dgIl1€:I11'. of this Court in the
case aiszzm #393? 7:. sum or KARKATAKA,
amp. Bi? aims rcporwd in 1m 2005
-W30. 'V ~
< _ 7. 1 pn a'Vqu31y from 1116 C-01111. whether, before xaaaking
= he has made any enquiry to find out
. of the charges levclied against the
;Iv7*1(:jc1-é.éVc:":1tor, the learned Cezmnsel submitted that he has
x V' .. i1eit1;c:r v¢1ifie{i the veracity <31" the said instxnctions nor have
V'
made nay personal enquiry and that his
based on the instructions of his clients.
8. The cntim o1derV$h.'eet
available to the Court as we11';§x€:t11c 1{é:p1y_
Prosecutor to the noticsi ~ixsflsue;d"'f§i'. allfigatioxts
made by the pctifionggf said material
discloses tIt1at t11i::;; Sessions Court an
15.03.2903
‘ ::;:;ha:ges an: fmmed. O11
27.1O.20GE5A.AAV ‘t1.v§C trial and sumxzmms were
issucc:i’..,1o’.’tl$at paint of time, the case was
oo11dt1ctb&.:i_’3y’ Vtlié in offica of the present Public
‘I’;V’¥1e2v–V.<V:::1vv\v'f'i"§.~:':.rf:s}1ec:t shows that witnesses were absent
uand 16.12.2005 to which date the case was
__ flzaéicfom, Non–BaiIablc Warmnts wens: issued to
tt.é"'—- C.Ws~1 to 4 were present and they ware
as th¢:': Public Prosecutor sought time on
V."»..2a'3.{.{1.2oo6. On 30.01.2006 C.Ws~5 ta 3 mm absent. 011
31.01.2005 C.Ws~8 and 10 were absent. On 23.03.2095 c.w-2
was pmsent. He was dischaxged as the Public Pmsecutor
9. DB 26.02.2007, the prresezm: Public
taken charge. 011 that data. he ‘ T
the documcnta. However, he
documents. Thezefore, \§’Afi§§~_’ thé
cxplanatiem offcmd, fllc .!:§1at on that
date, i..c., 26.02.2007, hcrtzin was
not willing to C1;L_’&$.!T_. fie him to: take
time. Whey; wittztc.-.33 box. He
requested for time for
ftu’theirvV’ __ was gamed by the Court.
Subscqfiénifiy, …. he examined the plaintifi’. The
pIa§;;fiif..}1aa§..Vb§¢:;§'{§m%i.§ The Public Prosecutor, on
., fias a letter to the Sub–Inspoc.tor of
Police Station, tmngng to his nofice that
% ~ pzoducing flit? witnesses in spite of issue: of
§.umnie;§§3 and warmzzats several times from the Court.
“ii there is delay in disposal of the case. Themfom, he
fequcstad the police authoxifies to secure tltm pmacnce of the
Witnesses, so that the case may be completed. It ia then, the
first mxmplaint by the petitioner on 18.07.2007′ was made
V
mquesfing fin’ change of the Public
} Inquest at’ the pctitionar was not 1:§3 l.f:y~: 9 7 A’
the pctitiqncr want to the czxtcnt
that Cami: itself; seeking for of it
in this backgmund, wt:j;avee«.to”$§;ri&i.§tc’fhe’–Ac01;tcntions of
the Pfifiticnczr. ” ‘ Vv
10- 1.. make it ckar
that :1;¢1dia;m§:¢ is regarding the cxriatcnoc
of a had. The mac which is
pending’ pertains to criminal trespass
angi .;d7a’£1_;agc atG The petitioner have also invakad
j 01′ Vi;i§;§A SC./SI’ (Prevention uf Atumiziea) Act,
‘fh§ is pending in the Cmnmal’ ‘ Court mac four
discloses that the peutioner-mpxaanamt is
pot iutéémated in pnmmuting flit: matter. Nowbaiiabla
hat}: to be issued to scour: the prmcnoe of the
” fimesms. By misrcprcacnmtion. the mcorda cue!’ tmfirc criminal
case in an uncacmnectcd case was aummoned, fbr which
suficicnt time was consumed in the Criminal Cmlrt. Later it
V.
10
was found that the said case ‘m nothing to do
case. In fact, the earlier Public Prosecutetf
shown sujficient interest in pmseeiiting aflfie vv erase» 1’.
dancing the tune of the 2
adjourned. This is what thetp¢§iw5one;§t’wantedj-%i:§fi3:e”‘¢§gc, 3.;
that the mxmsed arc Prosecutor
appears to be cnergeficuf the petitioner in
talcing itvulite has forced the
petitioner him. He has
also bringing to their
notieeigtheirt in securing the wimeases in the
case the Sessions Court to keep the
witnesses pmsent.’ V
‘ :11’-.t.. , it is iiiitier these circumstances, as the trial is
:9 within a short fime. which is not to the
of fitietifioner, he has started a campaign against the
making baseless and mckliess allegations.
” speaks for thetmseives. The Dimetor of Prosecution
‘tags {veil as the Government, being satisfied that there are no
%/_
bonafidcs in the complaint made by; the ‘ L.
rejected his request to change _:,'i»1tq:i§1~::V'J_"ze:1:£d ,:t'o appcaint anether Public in 'A
12. The “tziL’vvsza’§1%3§tan1iatc any of the
allegations madc, bcfom this
Court. The” éngi it, are without any
substance. those allegations is to
keep that the accused are made
to attefifl f ]1’c up ail their work and thus
the pctitioriér t§i”.h;ai}e the sadistic pleasure, as probably
<;*anm§ous th££i: thcrc may not be any merit in the
by him. Thcrcfom. the request made by the
jblaaztlgc of Public Prosecutor is actuated with
malafidtfi; find cannot be couzntenanoed. Under these
_ v»c%i1§ci;:mstances, I do not find any merit in thja writ petition.
AA,g.,.,.' ",Ȣmgzy, itis dismissed.
Sd/-.
ksp/~ Judge