IN THE HIGH coum' op KARNATAKA AT é '
DATED THIS THE 3'"! DAY~oII--.a.PRI]_L V
BEFORE _
THE HON'BLE MR. .I D$'I*I_QE fl"S__BO?}I1N!¢.§""'
% INRIT PET!T!Q!\_! (....|.I!¥1+'~'IL'!.'!..-!',.'A.'.'.§'=I".:}
. CIW _ . ,'
urn nl:vnImtn1t"~I;:n ca;-1 1?. in:\'rEn"~ than urn n-In-:n
Vin run I I nun! n4L._va¢mLf JV.;']'-;i\lU-E.i..'{~.'>bVI'iV'l'_'Vl'\..l'l4l'..a'I1'aj
-no um. um; -I':-cg nga. V ..
BETWEEN :
MMALLAN ' '
s/0 LATE--DANDAPms,II_ ._
AGED ABOUT :sEYEI;RE _ .
STONE+.CU'§'T'ER EERRQFEEEIQII -
R/0 I MAIN.«II CROSS} _
RAJENDRA~NA('xAR"-- " .
BANGALORE: 'V -
5' " I PETITIONER
% ' I (l3jr'D'*§I-i DI.h,IAKAl§.Klf)V.|
1 STATE OF' KARNATAKA
I B'! ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
' HOME as TRANSPORT DEPT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
DIRECTOR GEHERAL 65 INSPECIDR
GENERAL OF POLICE
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS
L
n
at
N02. NRUPTHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE~560 001
3 commsszonmn or POLICE
1, INFANTRY ROAD
BANGALORE-560 oox U '
5 POLICE INSPECTOR
SANJAYNAGAR POLICE emjxon "
BANGALORE-560 U94 U .
6 s KRIS-H_NAMUR'!'H_Y
FATHER'S NAME NOTAKNUWN U V
Due?-c'1'os: & ~..E!.~!Er-:.A'.L OF
PRISON-S, SHESHADRlI.R0Av'D' 2-' '
Ba~..ur..=.n:1.-01233.9-i.=6.o%UUU'~vV U
RESIDINGUAT'KEBi_COLOElY,4VSAI§fJAYN;%GAR
3A9zc+.Lo1=:g;=L~5o.924
P c maumrnwi-3.9..-:."22.0
7 "v .
CI'IXARM'ED.:8ESERVE "
ravsa;2:.rsUU4a2o.e. - *
I'_1'l'.1t'll1('\lfl"\.'l1I\'lf'I\£!|
no KL': FVIIUEJIVID
(By am R.B.;?;A'I}HYa§NAf€A?wA..NA amen. I-ICGP FOR
.. ma. R3-R'?-«V _ _
Unagsk, KR1SHNAM'UR'l'HY,PARTY-IN-PERSON FOR R-6
« . A ;~:.R: mv. 3-"ca R-'ii
* THzé'UUwErr PE'l'l'Pl0N IS FILED UNDER ARPICLE 226 or»
C('J§i$'§TTfi"l!"Ti0N CF' ififlifl. A F'F€fl'Y'E'R TO; DIRECT'
'1'!-IE i?,ES.!?0NDEN'PS 1 T0 5 TO REGISTER A CASE OF' MURDER
ANU 1-mu OVER 'THE in"v1:s'fiGAT1oN or' 'T'Hi.S CASE TO THE
CENTRAL BUREAU ow INVESTIGATION" TO ENSURE FAIR AND
« mPA:m*mL INVESTIGATION; DIRECT R-l- T0 7 TO PAY
_ 'COMPENSATION TO THE DEPENDENTS OF DECEASED
MURUGAN we is vrcma or- C-OLD-BLODDED MURDER.
J
'3;
mmmum
BETWEEN :
AN-JALI W/0 LATE MURUGAN
AGED .'-3011'!' 30 YRS
R] O GOVINDASWAMY NAGQR
cu MIEA In an nan M TALUK
IJIILI I'll IIVI II \I l\lI
VILLUPURAM DIST, TAMIL NADU _V V _
NOW 'PE."u€PORARIL'a' R/O 1'3!' H-AK?'-€,L CRGES
RAJENDRANAGAR, BANGALORE
STKTE..Qi5T..K;i\Riifi?l'AKfi.O_' ..
:32 npnmpuas. GHEEFSECRETARY
Iioivifi 2%.:-sii.:r TEAKSOPQR? DF="'I".
VJDHANA E'»'T.7UDHA .. ~ O
{-n
'2 r)iRECTOR GE.NERAL AND
; INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
~ KAR NATAKA s'1'A'1':s'.
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS
_ N012, NRUPATHUNGA Row
'--B_ANCiALQRE 1
3. V H SMJGLMNA
AGED fiBOU'I' 56 YRS
.F'ATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
AA ._ BANGALORE CITY
-_ NO. 1. INFANPRY ROAD
' BANGALORE1
I
4 POLICE INSPECTOR
%:":}u'J:-'xY:'u'A%R PGLECE """"'""!'!
BANGALORE 94 %
5 s KRIS!-INAMURTHY
aaim asom' 56 ':'RS _
FATHER'S NAME NOT Known .,
aiaacm. UR GE:'v'ERAL 9.1.-49* %z.-.'s..-99....-'*'*-*r.\::=: A A
GENERAL or masons, SHEEHAIJRI ROAD
R/O K.E.B. COLOP$Y;'~SANJAY§¥£€2§Al§"-«. 'A
I-It-an .'n_n..4
ANGA Ru;-oouua-1 -
6 POLiCE 'Fi.'RiJVa'::"sE»1.'Ax"3vf'_E'-'i'L§.1."Vs..T'.:
MAJOR. :FAT.H'.ER'S:_NA_ME: Nomraowta %
cm
MYSGRE»R0hi3_V__ '
BANGALQRE. ' H " '
%%%% % . _ % RESPONDENT8
(By sRf.R.B.8ATEiYFxh:lAI%Ai'§liA amen. HCGP FOR
R-1&2: --
DR.s."5RR3HNAMURrH?,, PAR'1'Y-IN-PERSON ma R-5
SR1 C.H." .HAnu1s1An*rH:;RAYA. ADV. FOR R-6)
V. «misVV'wRrr PETITVH %%%%% 1oN rs FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 on
' OF INDIA. WITH A PRAYER T0; DIRECT. R1
' TD. R4 REGISTER A CASE OF' MURDER AND THE
INV'E31'I(%fi_'9I0~N'OF THIS CASE TO THE CENTRAL BUREAU or
1N.\(Es'1'ICi.A'i':oN To ENSURE - FAIR AND IMPARPIAL
1NVE8'I'iGA'!'iON; DIRECT R3 T0 R6 To PAY COMPENSATION -OF
RUPEESFIVE LAKE-IS To THE PE'I'!'I'l0NER FOR nammme HER
V' H-USBARD av camno Hm A mcorr. RUBBER, cnmuw.
~ DERECYI' 121 To my 'COMPE.N_8A'HON ow RUPEE8
'r-4:135:17 FIVE uxas To me PE'f'I'I'ION'ER FOR THE manna
OF !~!U!3B.A!9lD
I
L
1.
These Writ Petitions having been reserved
coming on for pronouncement this day. the Court p:1::J1ounc--eE...iiie_T V.
following:
2. In Sri M.Ma1lan
cln:ims___ petitioner in
w.p.Ne.d67i}2en2e %'Ldd claims to be the wife of
deceased in the said incident which
on In the fin: petition, the petitioner
IiI'«t'Q\I'I:In~'
' to " acaae" ' of:r1inu'""'er am ' " 'nan' " 'ti-ove1"""'
insdestigtition of the case to Bureau of
Inveeiigaaiion ('CBl' for short) to ensure fair and
The petitioner has aleo qought In mandamus to
the respondents to pay compensation to the
I
15
% '1'=PW;'+'-"'3 %°1"% dmwd MI-rusfin 1;Wl39 j
petitioner' is a victim ofoold blooded*mmd_er. raj-L§hg%§j j
petiiion.%t1z.e pefifloner seek» for
._ %mgi_a_»tg:r__a case--of _
Q: gang: in OBI. " L'
a1.':«_'_Ip_I.|! 51: wgfiwv
%'thc'mInt1er___01" 1:; [2
__%fuu __.'
for defgxiiirgfi her hii'fiii'1€'i i'u:3r'~%s;wu:ng"'a"'ufsi' 3
etc. mugigt for
to
are ~that on thc u:gm.%%.;g%2:a";a:.».2oo;. sam-
- to to ?h1§nk the kitchen door of the
« "'-=4---%%--§ In '£4:-.r=e .
'~._...;-.'!-..'..y._ 4.1:: i fiat I1'-I:s-..mu-|I'alri1I|1I- an Dixauhnn, annal-
\ava.w.mn§ unw-
'V-I211
II'?-Ila ll-I-I-II? "FIJI-R'-I-II CID I-IIIIZWIILIJ
___ inapq_ciI;r' of Prisons." "i"'nc ai KEB
Bangalore. -- One P.G.Purushotha_m
other mapond'cnt,_%a
% %[C'vns*ahh who was P°_','°d' an 8 the -aid
1
i
I
In
Dr.S.Knshnam' urthy on havm' g heard the noiseof,
persona attempting to break open the
the basement of the house attempted ._
that the door to the " V L'
nu---,-.v.
ad. 1; Liek E heen__ out and
......;...... u... .....:.1 4.1...- ....;...,..'.......- .. 4 ;,-*.z.. :.__1- _.,.__ 4.1.-
door with a houraer amine' 't mm' 'as 'them,
the said to attack
Sri Puruv is said to have fired a o
shot which hit one of the persons.
The othentivo the person who was hit by the
bul1:;t.Vtr§v__i_og"'m'V'cli.i'nb over the wall, in ml to have
. V. of the wall, who was later identified'
- 'I1I;T_. -n-cu.
'9
ten ":3 V' tantra tell} nnnrnflina in H11-_ uni-ifinnln-It Inn was
............-......:I .......1I
.1' .._....I -....L:~.¢L........... ..........., a.I..... ..... 1.l............_... ..
to M.s.fiamaiah Hoapitalanci hewas
the poatlnortem was conducted on 24.12.2001.
o ,.._h1'V"'.'.13uhaequently the petitioner was called on 25.12.2001 and
thebodywashandcdover. Thchzciientisaaidtohawbeen
J
)2
'I
reported in the newspapers. The issue had reieezi i T; 7 '
the learned counsel lbr the i-hing'
Director General of Police and "
petitioner is said to ti on * L'
I J-(IQ!-I can u.--. crown---
.onr.11 in the M' im.e;~ in
1:1__'l£'I_ _ __'I .1." ...... ....
nxcnnuou on Gov i* ""Vp""i""' =i""" 33"" "' """'
haw.
iikciy to come oi.§t--§.f theease fife the city Folios
since Sri. of Pohee at that
point urthy and 1.. 1....
that it was a case of
pxivate was a daooit and the
pxeeent Police as 000 is in friendly terms
It is in this background, the
" em--e- sue-a.. the n e n: me' e senezein r__he
Murugan has sufilud" ' injuafioe and proper
_ should be made and appropriate -compensation
be given to Murugan'.-s wife Smt. Anjali. in the
petition. legal ooninntions with regarcl to private defence
I
43
avmlab' le under the Indian Penal code and the '
same is also stated. The manner inwhich K '
occumed is disputed. The pcfifioh':.hy:.'_Si*iV
filed on 3.2.2002. 'rheied&cr'i1_ie..%(pciiiiex§ by *
filed on 18.2.2002.
're 13.: I-I.iI\.4 In-ow!-I, I=I~I-I-Insulin:
'L ;__._ 3:- -1-.. _4.._a...._1 A.'I_._J.
l".l.£.'l.nE'.T 1%. 13 E1180 3 ID". Inlllfll.
s'*'"* Tits 1 _ 2
her had
her huisiidiid * in his hoiise while he
was and he did not pay his wages
and that hd' ..i......a2 at him when he had sought roi-
" wage " .9. With iegaid to the incident, it is
itamc to Bangalore and went to Same' ynagar
The
U] wG'i'i'.IiI".¢u\J\uL¢'iCi='i%"'""':"
E.
her to if she did not itecp quiet. Smt. imjaii aiao
daontends that she went to the house undcr construction
'next to Dr.K1:iahnamurthy's house and met the pardons
3' %*"""'
FF
5
working in that house. They told her that u
Mumgan and 15 others were doing
that house. They also told her
going to her native village other dues
a_nc1 t' V
nnn I'-I-and-I!-(\-Iv rfiannr "'6
w.............. 1.... eeiam.
has petition.
5. The its objection
statement_1ie'~ that the my Writ
Pk:-.titioia_ is or this Court. It is contended
that thetpeieiiioh similar he the tatement of
the ef inferences an appeared in the
thin nil. '1-inn in
1 W PM'. W
me...
is
., - 41...." '.~ ..,~:......-|.~.... -...... ..
tn' vie'; ' 'Liv If
4.1.... ___.-:.... _.,:_.1..4.. 1.--; :4. :... .__.
H10; uuacugnuu. uI.II.1I.lflIl.l.l
eoeenpiee the Police Clffiocra and hiierieiing with
and prosecution. It is contended that
M fttihe heiitioo is also not maintainahle sinoe the investigation
__' an ""n-- mini';-a-win':-u.nn-u chug-nI-- 'tn.
1; no "In-n
CID I IIIG I-I-Iifi II' ILIG
petitioner that Puruahotham Ran was not a gunman, but
ldcwtiistdtoook and did not know how to handle the sun are
With regard tothe allegation that deceased
house of the neighbour of the respondent Sri Nanjappa and
1
la
that 11:: had also made him work is denied and
is stated that the mud' ' ent hook 'V
construction of the house in
Krishnamuxthy and which to " T'
by t_h.t.: e.1n_d gf Dar._=c_I.II._h:.r !'="'*J.m..='
' ._."'..'-._1V"v~ .1.-- .1 1.... _.._.
w.u...u.....m. uas 'fir. -'Fm-r;~:: u 112;. - tun uuiri
dain. statement has
also to state that
constructing his
houscllz the house of the neighbour Sri
-of that house "had stopped
by and git' and the said sai Nanjappa had
a
I1:-I5-Inn; mm. nlan
aa.'.a_ a ' :10 a snngnyyu uuau % }u-'a.u.u.n.n¢u_[ nan cu-nun:
1'*x:*-.33 ; aim ulfififi in unis uuuusm, uu: uuim fiiit ffifiii 'I3? fie
pefitiangi» has been denied. with regard to the allegations
Sri Puruahotham Rao was only a cook etc,
' states that Sri Purushotham Rao was
mcruitnd as a constable on 22.2.1996 and the demila with
1
33
same manner as contended in
on behalf of the coveinmené.eick_T1i¢'eii¢iaiia ff,
pistol iasued by the the may * mined
in that xegaxd is to--'_$:'ni- ft», that an
Purushctham Rap was of the
n
-. .-- _......_'..__
Pistol. !* in iiiam ' ii of t.h.e cnmtnr
_...........1 ...r 2
I
in iiieedpiisoiidd' and security
suapecf as such three gunmen were
General of Prisons and
V' _ continued for his protection. Dr. S.
states that an ex--police Oflicer of
open pnesa through the media inclusive of
and television stated that a letter was also
E
lb
..-e-------
g-mm"! and was taamhew to hart:-'Ea fie _a_rr:ii.
ft. is "t this tinge the Ex-Foiioe -Gfiieer went to
and made a statement pmettcally' " retracting '
that Sri Purushotham Rao was a cook, of' 'A V'
the situation by asserting that Sxi
been properly appointed dnot t'
according to the rules. This the oflioer
is to none other than he
Dr.S,K.1is.?1.n_a.m_I.11t_.hy f-.:.Ijt!:.ef net mm or
3.-assess he shot
place, he
oontml Room and to
the nor-t,« t the Police-came to the spot,
they Atfoundtéttthev A whioh had been used in an
the kitchen door. The fuse of the
. been tampered with. Immediately Sri
flee informed that he the heeeeh erhe .1-e«i..
" §_h9t urn-I gig em... :..........a:..a._:.. ............e...: The
?
nun a a nun: Iuuuuusnlusy u::uI.uuI_=u.
'I...
_'I____
c--r"""'~"" "pen 'f the uoor was not suoeessfui because of Sri
2%
1
J?
1.
Puruahotham Ran': alertness and timely jieomee
of the neighbours who had come out on hearing H
noise are alao mentioned in the objeot_io1_I ,!t l
w-u-an-nor --mu-unrup I-I-II-J I-laid LIIJI-I
Sr'; . ':"hexT: was mom-1y'w&he;m""a
iimse mber gang had made only
few days earlier. They mm of lime
by an air rifle. Dr. S. efilitce with regard
to the pIO0OdllfifLt.1 i.at fi_|,ga1d)n' 3 the
Illasiaterial or C.lr.P.C. The piaml
used Vhzv"-e "R:*.o"§ was taken over by
;»;._:1am_a_~.
lmlkt -.-.'h§.¢h.4 l~.e=.:'. hit was also f air} 'the
Ran. The details ofthe ballistic report is
l 'V tatfi5oi..1:g:on':t"hc body ofthe victim mad as such the shotwue
V l elm: fioint blank range. Two sniffer' dogs were pleased V
The first snifier dog was made I to smell the J!
J:
a
II
\-
boulder and it jumped aemua the wall', went' to
when-. Murugan was found dead and than
Fa
IO
v------pu--- ---u--nu
u
I
..¢ ___..4. m1._ ____.._1 4-- ...1.:_I_ :-_.._._" '..1..;--a.,-I
I. ElL'«C.l.I.l... ILID fl.'nUl.lll I103 WIIIJII nan
later was macie to ameii fuse
to the place when: went
along the same trail up confirms that
the boulder wags mmnved by
The
dglpiin "Q. iii? "in _ ' lg!-III: n _ . nun ¥'l'h'h
____-__ 1.-.: _____.___u.;_._~a A_'I__ __s._1
"E Illlllllflllflilfllllllllfllitlillflllll
Lg- _l_;a'__.;. __
pcnunnlng igla-uulieu .
I by the Ieaponcient; regard to
_ made by the learned eounlel for the
%p¢ti::aon¢£A"t:;a:}a%:aar enqlxhy would not be made, it is stated
incluuge of the GOD is a very senior and
Olfloer who h even ' senior In
and Sri H The qualifications
E
istnn . _f . lung until :_ yanks-I '
7. In the additional nintemefitief By fiefi
mandamus is not 'the-re beimig demand
of No.:i65g.ri;1 ~ .353 3-_:-J. with
.%~«siioma**-kijimeiei%[iiiieai§ §i%'kia cane inniitutieti 'by
Dr.K1-1" fine'-m. mm .' learned counsel for the
petitioner fbz' "is akin indicated. Refening to
in the Writ Petition finther details
the petition and the emappeara to be
eaflier statement of objections. Further
',.»the44uave!:n~...e1itahaveheen1efened Inh1mde:rIn1nd1oa' ' to'
V' i_It_t_:;rn_:_I1L1st_e1I_t::1_nn 9! @ ;*_-=-.fnm._...-gt: '''-'..._......I-''-'- 'W %>
- -Iifl-5!!-Srurnnu-n u'Ina\-- I-'In... food-I.'-.
It II-rJ'
um. um-'-mu"iiu"i-a i"u*i'r-en' iii the
:3
additional objections stntcmcnt am in the
form, the entire details need not (go. ' L"
8, l__ at.» Q gen t_ht_r 9. "
m---...moo 'cm-era
it 'at denied by as an moi: in
the house or in the
petition mot 3:.q;.o;: :oho£'j_;_y§h§oh.__o-- in the death of
Mmuggn in also denied. The
Qaid he is a gunman eve:-since
_ 'Pieto1' had been given to him by the
2:
i
E
.....A.I.-.. .........I 'I..-
Plullflit Ml":-lM uI'Ul illlll '[115
cm.' ejgfinnfis warranted the opcnm' g of file file. He
that he had already made the umtcw ants in
tn the said cirmmnatnnoe bcfom the sub-divisional
_'V_!§§iagia!1atc and before the Sanjaynagar Police and also before
the COD.
:\,".-.
9. On behalf of the petitioner, rejoinder -has
filed.
10. On these rival oomcn!:3aI:s,'l ll
Dr.Kriahnamurthy. the Sri
Sathyanarayana Singh,;__ and
the Inn-I-nut} %II'I'|flDl far
I65'!
11. are in eiabomtion
of the coninntion would be
inetead of specific
mefiexenee mfcrmd to by the learned
'V "person whichever relevant would
ll to analysm g.
12?... 3-.V *'.....n '-........-=-.':m'......**'--' of *...e ri-J.-.1 wr."--..e..&:-.=
41.. '___ Wfi1_.!.. _..' I'. _L LI. _i ail}. . I _ ..1 .n.._I _ __
past midnight of 23.12.2001 and early hours of-
?' 24.12.2001 in the house of Dr.K:mhnam' army in not in
I
L
. "w lilan nrII'I1|"T_..- ".1.
" ._ ntmdufigl
dispute. The question raised by both the sides
with regard to the allegations made by the
first instance alleging that kk
shot at deceased Murugtm from
of
{kg 1 " . n (I;-inn
luv III-fiIfl.l-I!-I-I-I-I5 nnsuu -I_,VH!l- we 5:: {I II'!-2)?!' wsnnun nan;
C)
second on
is an em wheresgi shot deceased
Murugan, handle pistol and
in any a uituat-.ion« cannot
be ju§fi'jfiegl~ came not oatiafir any one -of the
102, 103 and 105 of Indian "Penal w
._.___ tJI.;s_m: the
.1
--_..._-- --...-_ .._ ...... .. .-....-... .. .._...._- I...............
' ..=.-.'&e-...L.. _ nnuuavunnru 'inn 'In.-I-I nlllnl-inn-I Ian
is oontraly in pmoeciume and in fact S1'-i
Po 31-uL Rae was only a cook -who was woflcmg' for
l?'»r.I§riahna:nurthy. On behalf of the respondent, not only
' posting ofSn' Purushotham Run as gunman has been
)2
3
'-
0
-.-.'1*.e:.~e-.-m-.z'.cr Sn Pia:-.:sha'a"1m*u R" was fififii ' ' .
fire is also 'V
Dr.Kr.iahnamurthy owing certain
to certain mason work alleged'
not only been denied by Dr.Kna!mam 1' £1} derailed
explanation has been the ' ' of
such a claim. have been
angued at sum; (.3;-1I_.t-t
__..._.:_V_. _.__.1 '1 Lu'; ' ._ .4:
. manna' t he ioat sight of. -Every
cietnii t§ingVto ' Having occuned. the manner in
Wh'°hh the '@1',_' 'f ohaasoobeen ' lined and as to whether Sri
L' iota in detail in a writ as ifaaaeaaing
gag, trial. All that zequzim to he noticed' in this
peti;ionV i1_I Iegaml to the ymeedure followed, with regani
»1'g'm_ 11;- -_tI_',_mLit_r:I_ g.-1.1.-.1.-.«.~.t.-e.a-.1 by 4.1;. pn...L --4.... -*..1.'-.a-.-=m...........--'-''----''
..
3′
“I’1.”‘l IIQIID -I-Ian, I-I-Inn—-n|-Iv angst Again: Ii}
1 1.:|luI.- uuvu unuuniu IIIU IISHCEIIL UB1?’ lllll’
the extent ofanalyaing the contentions put lbrth
_….I_.._.__I IrnI_.:g._1,A ‘
9. *…..'”-.. 3’13.-e&e %:….”-” R dam m .
Gu”.|i’_y’ E an cu-‘ujiifi by the GB} is ‘melon. ‘v V
this aspect of the matter, the
this Court while considering cf in
the petition under “iof mm 1
also mquima he he in math
E
E
E
‘5
2..
to counsel for the pehlianer”
,_on thiist:g!:a..«the contentions urged in the petition
the news items which have appeared in
folkzwing the incident. -A perusal of
the which’ have been prod. need both. by the
A i ‘ as well as Dnliriahnamurthy would -indicate’ that
— xetamg t9 the ei_r:¢.-1-‘.-i__-I-.r;.e in -I .=..!.-=.:.;*er’.. *..-.-h. t!-__..-2
L
‘I.
learned counsel for the petitioner’ himself gin ‘
stage itself the learned counsel forvthe in
certain’ issues with regard to the
on 27.12.2001 by the to
the Hog Mihister details
‘U
Jenna;-s _ u-_p
wntaiziefi in the said ””11—‘*—“‘ *-n*’..’%m””–.’.’-:==.-1 “!.-….a Let several.
issues have thotifi than The learned counsel
would instructions. I do not wish to
advert the g same since any such
observation either of the parties in the other
amongstvthemselves. However, with regard to the
. 5′;
” on. hehaslf of the that the
doaease-i~ -asst shat d% by …..i-Heel!’ at
point range when the deceased appmacheti for
of the outstanding wages, the same is not
i’ séubstsnfiated except for the bald allegations made in the
petition stating that certain other persons who were
II’ B–II—-
SInt.Anjah’ that Murugan had tnld them that e &
her village after collecting
1″,
card. e I as’:
Hfinhnnvnirrfhu, “I”‘I’u-, nflunv id’. . ~_
1.-.: ¢’;’.~.n_-n ¢V’.:l_…a,V. ‘VA.’I.__4. V
amp _ nuun llllll.
deceased: :’v1iu”iii’a”‘u man -5151
in
the next house and had ;e§s9n’s work in his
house and had fm. the “me
though he before his house.
It is re. to explain that
wages. Despite the fact that
forth by Dr..S.K1-.iahna.I.nuI’th_I,r
en’ kin hnllnn I-nut! nnvlnn-Ilni-J11 an
I1’nr:u’I’§I’I\nr In ‘ _
‘1.-u.I.u’.II.| ‘ll-filial sis new uvuwu
in 1998 and that the eonsizruction week of
building belonging to Sri Nanjappn had
been October 2000 and deceased Murugsn had
ne-t_.bee’n engaged by Sri Nanjappa for consimctima work, no
has been placed on behalfof the petitioner nor any
0% person ha stated that deceased Murugan had” worked
3’ :’_3———–.
payment of his wages am:
either for Drfiriahnamurthy or Sri K
n_u_–_t_-M gmnotiatgtt otatement. tiattugh it its
about 15 other lam”-..ze:e.’e we ‘.-.I’r.2z4*1.r._’i_.z.’-‘gV_ tlzae,
aiaiement is maria by 5
hefbm Court. on =t:ttt= other the by
Sri Nanjappa to the not worked
would lend put forth by
pemon can
ta’ would approach the
other for during midnight and that
too whet gm a_I.l_1Q!Lnt gunmen; for __a
“”‘g{ ‘!’ht-=5:-;;%m.V the thwry of the dw………-‘–*–‘ ….’*-=-‘.’i”..g
1
__ ‘uh y havJn’ 1; shot him at that tune’ cannot be
in event.
A 14. with regard to the allegation that so Puruahotham
% ‘V I-i§ao was working a a cook and he was not entitled to handle
weapons is without’ basis whatsoever since the teoomds
“fi’1nH’1n
‘~’m’*e’ pre:«»m.’°=,t wnén
submitted clearly indicate his appomunent,
imparted, a gun being issued. The Tnontg kk
been posted as a gunman to
tine p:Iooec_l1n\:: L n_t a ,ua.tLe_i’ go_ e is ”
any %vent the tact’ ‘ cannot be
disputed and .dufife’a’aé1′;to’- in a particular
situation er in which’ he
has looked into by the a
Police eanducma by the jurisdictional
police an as such if any of the finding
awe itv’:ia to be questioned in an appropriate
av… ‘nun-ugl
of p-.’.~.-fi…z-.g of 9″‘ =*’—l’=e”—m
J-..~.. .’.. …..1-.. I..- ____. :_ _I__ __ _. .9 1…-__
.mi’€su _y’uTru::e|u.7.|.Iu1’I’.m=-“‘ ‘=
itzaeif, he was the pension who waapreaent
iiarii the weapon and not Dr- Kxiahnaanurthy. as
Further. if after considering the case put forth by
. petitioner, ifthia Court is satisfied that the matter calls
for any further enquiries, these are matters which would
3
ee-nt.eer_I +._._r–_t LI-…. mm-A-we see at
have to be considered therein and therefore, a
fiact cannot be rendered merely
made in the form of oath againt
wteieh mum I.ae«.:e ta be e;;he,ee-et;;, :.2-en….;_.ie h
an I ’41” ‘ I-A
HUB-C.|H51\u.a 33 in
Si’
‘ I
II-ll
-e I… D -» -.l.il!¥I-ll.
petitioner, no doubt, ifmnataita
Manual Vol.1 whexein standing
guards Vthesmhlhnum smengttv
of the and four cozntnhlcs.
In so as is stated in clause 729 that
guards tn. may be pnwidecl with the
of The learned counsel ‘would
A A 9. g-mm-.:.-I-. in
la-nu veIv1|-‘IwIuuI-II- w–v-rs unnunennn In.-
:2
I.
?
AL _J.
n,e..ar.:n i..’L…’:V;-.«s…”… .. ~ 1…… ….. 1.-…. _
‘u:..u-.An:.’.vA nu t uuuu xuutnvuu. Inc ‘t ulul.
could be posted on or-tiers of the governm ent
disputed. In the instant case. the government
Vine: disputed the iiact of gunman being allotted to
. __lI3r.S.K1iahnam.unthy. In fact the details of the tmmm’ .’ g
undergone by Sri Purushotham Ran at GAR Head quarters
iz
and that he had been assigned work an n
L.Revanaa1d- ‘ da1ah’ and later . 411:: k V
Sri Puruehotham Ran *
been stated by the that-
afier retirement of Sri _ Ruo a.sm--.-gab .......m as
details? allotted to senior Police
gem’ are available in the
:i11v”‘§’1’l£i-*?lio~;x’j” tiibbaadiuon to the latcment of the
G5,’ v-gm’ :wgr1t;e’~”a1i’§JAsIiyap1-alca “”” ah Nayak. Deputy Come” ‘ er
df Reserve I-LQ. hm filed an aflidavit
‘ “5′”””.'”!5 “”””
clarifying the method and manner of
i-LQ. “i”‘ne said Gifieer to in
iqaave been made by Sri Bagbel, IFS who was working as DCP.
WThesaidOfl’iee1’haaalaoswomhothema:nnerofpostingSIi
I
J;
’11
Purushotham Rao, Sri Ravi and Sri Sumah ‘
that the; learned counsel tbr the pciifioimr K 2
at that time was also aware of
has also ataind about
-van -*”-‘ ‘ – “”*’-“‘***”‘~ in-‘ *’*-In th.-.-.0
«mun» aw mm or am
General__o_i’ V ber2001. ltiaalso
assigned In all the miniatem
and since 31.7.1999 the Hon’ble
of High Court wen: al given the
V .. ….. .. and that _ Ont is
J. a_- _..- -…”.;..f___¢ .._..a 41…… ……. ……. ‘ ..
Illily aauifiumuut mm uusy an: pauuuwu vvuu an unuum
E.
:.
3.
I’
E
?
5:
HI
piatoi’ along with necessary mnmuniiions. “i”‘neae stats
e to indicate that the allotment of gunmen are made
communication and the instant case i not an isolated
case. The communication datnd 30.4.2001 stating that the
#1’:–I-uh
Ii
gunmen are aaaipied to Dr.Krishnamu11:hy ii ‘:7 V’
mama. Theiefome, in my view;””theA
Puruahotham Rao 3 a gunman of ._
be said to he unauthoxised.
15. In $13 {the ‘i”‘”~”‘””‘ :’.–“-“‘- cf “‘-
incident which _’ Z
noticed. _ ggagiondenm is that
had gone out to a
movie had thereafter ietired for
the dayi was in the basement and is
to noise near the kitchen door and
. “” come ” out, a stick had been. inserted’ to
the ‘.”.;.jm:.’.~~s.-I.1*…!:I.’IriL..I..-.- and 9..fi.2.’-r pulling the dI’_|£.Il’ and
Union
a “2 ‘V – o a
hi*e¢;ismg~ Sufi stiris: I’.’:u”i”‘u’ ‘mt an iic’a”uuuuu’.””‘ that ‘ck-tee
petaoixvsiwem attempting to tweak open the kitchen door with
boulder. On noticing Sn’ Purushotham Ran, the said
jaemona am said to have attempted to attack him with the
boulder and as such in defence and to prevent the mime, he
I
}>
‘n.
opened fin-. from his aewiee pistol which *
persons who later was
thereafier attempting he run
efirrze ‘iitfilifl save’.-ai euhfi m @ .pet
in View of t’|’u’:x””uu’if’u”:’:’i’
called the auiveci at
the spot Hospital.
In __ __eontex1=fion put forth by the
the fer the petitioner attempts
to the scene ofoiienee which might
manner in which Sn’ Puruehotham
fled. awed glee mfened to the
amt air tliroiifi ‘u’u”.:;c-‘.1 the 33%: has -fit-“H tn
EHIHFDTUW 9|:
_opnm”naf_’ that he had not insianinneousiy The
meamn’ g of the part ofthe body was also retenecl’ ‘
‘ In ihct the reference made by the learned counsel for the
petitionertothepoatmortzamreportietnoontendthatthe
” bu-_—
o
‘I7
‘ . ‘I
aux: U|.!.|.I}.I uuqgulmuuu 6: Lu
txajectory would suggest that he had fixed ~
the same level and the deceased w.aa..s_tandmg_ T AL V
fawn’ g the man who fimd and net’
argument would mine’ I:
Rao more probable as file two
ether; who were must have been
4-:
cha.”.-i”-..g 9.. .bL’.a t..v.A:,=-V–.–…..-.’;…’.A–.1.r.’_e.~.e,Iz t-he-.t they have
1;..- ‘n.;_.
t a.~uun’f”ui% 351% h’ “””‘
G WEE
not the ieamed Gounaei.
Rao that he came
out to his master and when he was
being ..atmttKc£i3 A be lite seems to be the more
gcce iitéblb Afler firing.’ since’ he did not die
he mut have attempted to run away afler
the
‘I’I._ -pl QJI~ln’I.JhUill “ml-:Iln:II:;Innr C-‘In =f£.. I-I-I.l’Il’ flflfllll w
.. .!.I.I_ _ L1. __._
V’ the scene of nor has anyone
‘spokenwithregmdtotbat. Thoughthelemnedcounaclwaa
I
,\’|
sarcastic about the size of the boulder so he to he
the size of which is seen in the pheeeg;;;px; ”
that it is big enough to cause
with. The right of pm te defencef’ hy
th as to
cf inf:-rim-,9 t_t__’I t
—JIe.’d- .–u LEA: r-in
I.I.l.l.r _|_.lJavI-tun-I riureuu _A – >–_–.–..–
wme-.u . sight hiinaeifor the null: I by the 'put the same cannot evidence as done in
. . We] to seen is that the chain of
events the property. the guaxd
cut in pxevent the crime on hearing the
i i ” ifan attempt to attack the penon of
it ” and in that circumstance. private
d4Er;r:”*.~w.-_.ih.– it emanate m ‘.2-.;-t.|.1..t FI.L*.he.1-‘, t…_hn
‘_._I!__J._ LI__A
siatenierit of the neighbours wouid mmeaue mat them was
no and the materials also that fuse
{was removed. In such circumstance, the incident has taken
place. Theleamedcounselforthepetitionerhasalaozelied
9
J2
1.
on the decisions to exphain the view” expre seed bzvf: ”
Supreme Court with vegan! to the vmarmer it it
private defence and it is further
decision would also indicate-ithgrt the to = ”
private tieferrce is to Sessions and
case of @
RAJA ssxHs;é;4.%i, (cri) 16] the facts
involvctl has exchange of hot words
over of rims destroying the crops of the
acceeseq. others who went to the piece
. i sheep and untied it hum’ the rope, which
of words hetwee-1.1 the and
when the dwased kl} do-.-.-rr alter ..;…….*-‘-*-.*;:*.g the
V injuries, the accused another hinw on his neck. it is
context when the accused took the plea of right of
h it defence, the Horfble Supreme Court expressed that
the entire incident must be exarnined with proper care when
I
😐
such defence is taken and the accused must
were circumstances giving rise In it
apprehending that either death ._
E3
s’5’i’:”{i’E or-‘ ceearrzsreaae ‘é-;.~.1Tr}.~é.he *-
invoivefl was a case between the sisters and e am: the 6 accused by Janguram
and when.eh_e’ the accused appellant
–_ .. danguram was holding and
assaulteti”-hire and caused seweral injuries
git’ is in’ the right of private defence
H-ti-W 96- 9! !PC was -.-.-.=r..-.=-.mLnerJ. ms! in fact t.._h-.
I__._
an s ueu mat ii’ ‘net iii ‘htract
such a question can be down. in the
efjaear smea vs. STATE or I-IIMACHAL PRADESH
[(195614 SOC 296] the facts involved in that case has been
since the deceased was unarmed and there was
no justification on the part of the appellant for a
:’i ‘R:-
H-4%’ m an-n-“”6 in :.:.-.r_-. ca_ne4A-_ND.VV,K_i\!Q’§’§iEaR”jVS. V t
seven: blow on his head with a takwa. In the case
KAHAR vs. STATE 01? BIHAR [(1971y3s.s_cc tent ” ‘s V
had taken place at about noon on at”a_ it
field in the village where the
dilfelent porfions and vtrhen his
1-.eig,hbcu.-re.-“s sI.re1rI.t to cthers wen: also
there, Han-ay-2 am’. mi; whihe
iianhu was ii “aft:-lat s’u-fig-3 Hi.’€a}’e=.t
ordexed when: there was a
dispute was attack on each
other, based on the evidence that
was “Court afier trial. In the case of
” ll °-JH?a.l§MAL vs. sTA*rE’o:r HARYANA [(199412 sec 551] the
then: was a light between two group
=.-.’ es.c.h cth_..r s.n._I.i. injuries and in
that cmiieiit the Hcfi”c” Sapreme %’art had 11:11′. that the
need not prove the plea of seiftiefi’:uce “ycrui all
h lléeasonable doubt, but if preponderance of probabilities. the
plea becomes plausible then they have to be given that
:’ %——–
up
benefit and it was noticed that the same * ‘
some cxtcn t. Similar’ ‘ is the new’ tar the “of; Pl§.g1’_’3;jU._V M’ ”
PRASAD SAH vs. same or BIl;lAR1’_’_'[(1;97ti}4″ :SCCl:28§};.:
From me’ declare’ ‘ ns cited bylV._tlrex f
petitioner what is evident is that_ H_on’ble’* Court
…….’~-=-‘ -…………….~’-=-‘-if-~’ the me: fl taken
its -‘new and all the f-~- casessvnm ‘-me.-…-“-:3.-*–..;..~.-.
had been in the fiat
such the learned counsel
for all the said cases, there
was a the offence which had been
invesfiggteclll had been filed, and in the said
cases been taken which had been
and therefore it is for the Sessions
Jnfige Ate erar.-r*..*3e this asp.-..-‘-t and then-..=.-.!’!.er to M
iaesteci .i;efoIe the forum. it is t.’aei’cfore wntentled
the instant case also’ , charge’ of murder should have
‘ liaeen tram’ ed and only in such prosecution launched, it
would have been open for S11′ Purushotham Rae to take such
I
:2
‘a.
JE-
u- .
definm and tn ,iu_t.Li3r m- fin” the
and the Police it dwizie on t…..*–‘- ~—t.:_.lfie__”«
contention, the decision above cannot ii
since the circumstances and the
not analogous to the instant *’
case is also a case of murder
However, what requiles’ :.;gfl§j;e which
the investigation the incident
I.an.. the the Magietmte
ant’. it’. placed on the
said an =ttip}~~:~.+.er;’.;–;;-.5-.–. -.-…-g.-.-=.. etill m
«int “whether it woiiid ieqiiire a
it as prayed by the petitioner or
“-era’ should have made out any grievance
‘Heme before any other forum. Though the
pi for the petitioner contends that the
of a case for murder was a must in View of the
p1rc’a..____n contained in Sections 299 and 300 Cr.P.C, what
42
was the informant to the jurisdictional police. éhfe =
incident on 23.12.2oo1%anc1 based..on.._the ‘?EI’4tietei1ed.,. kt
investigation has been made
investigation the chmue
petitioners had the able that
fl-35:’: nlun ha:-I filnrl _g_ 1; ‘nix
L ,.._…,__ s_Ifleget_Ir_n_a hne
made that San’ ‘..ua’*- -‘-pu-*-mu’-‘*-. no
mw steps he the mvmeentafion
made the Home
Them1iore,__ (xnnplaint of murder against
Sri ttméetgittt-mg the course of investigation
has the Police that the incident he
. . ” notfiken in reported, but it was a case of
:
t.__.1e were ci_1t_:umetnnoe lending to that.
31*}
petiiioneis himseif stating in to the h”i1e
Miniomr that it has been repieeented to mm” ‘ that Dr. S.
took out his pistol and shot at Mu-rugan
when he had gone to aakforhiawagee, them iano material
3
J2
–
I
whatsoever and as such the question of it
murder against him did not arise.
that context that Sri Ptnushothaia fiée.,A%A.not«. ._
pistol. but the _perusal of c01§–_m~o:,i”‘ A
‘ 4
only for his 1_n.:t..r :_,u., i;«;-L:-+i;.-=;’.=-ml. dar-
Based oi: iuveaiiga
the nggm occurred the
question oi not arise as
routine is eamhliahed to be
faulty appmpmiaae forum.
16. Though-v__thei’ iearned’ counsel for the petitioner’ ‘
case where a person is killed, the
Iegiatered and nought to allege that in the
such case is registered’ only because
K V –V is influential and his colleague ofiieera
him, the ieapondents series’ may disp um
and on bQh§l_f «.1: the .-,«.r.»-.-_n.–……..=r-u–2 it ia –……–~…….-I-.;e
4!
To substantiate the aspect that it is not ”
special tmatment in the pmamt c;-men; M
when similar circumstances amae _
attempted to commit the ” V L’
—-n—— -n._
miirxifi eases hair: *;<Iii."'r:e§%'aa:e'.i' s7v'ir'u:uue-*- 'ii auuu"-'-
cases sf 'a -iint of cases
~ In
ito sac/1999 an am» can 333
– F’ 91.1; or the Kurntakn latest Ant. –
«iwhslfe efie”””‘I’ajimulla and Ahmed Khan. and three
_ total of Eve accused pet-“eons attacked the
‘V uewhile they were challenged when they were
X pbzfunitting theft of Sandalwood and when they attacked
the police, two named above were shot and they died
due to the iniuriea received.
The accused have been charged for deceit}! and aennult
on Public Servants etc and ease in P1’ as three ancueed
nix
‘7.
45
have abaoondod after several hearinga. at ohm. _
noted, after the inveatigatioz-_1;.».Atho ‘ix ‘tit_i!yV”ogainst’4 ” ”
the accused and not agaifigt
action in self-defence.
. Attihclo Or No 3189 V-“–~
Bittappa s/o P§na;ppa%o*§iA:t;fo§ie, Bidargu’ mange’ .
where on the i2.__1:..tti9i§9′; this house was
attacko.:i:Aby_ml1taot;o gggd ISIG ffllappa opened fire
with hing oiwfof dacoits and on CC No
.. convicted (home again
the aiction in self defence was not
” fins)
~ as am; 14139 an ass — on the night of 10*
_11vh t”J’anhu’a:~y 1939. at 0115 hours, one B v
A 3 ” ‘ T. S/o Venkatoahappa of
A village opened fire on daooito who made
attempt on his house and one of the daooits was
killed. And the case was made out only against the
accused pemona and no case was made aminet the
person who acted in self defence.
-_Iu\’-3″””””
4 .’aa:.~.maa-.-.— 93 cr 291:9: we 39: !”‘:~W””*-:*e Lo
ufiiinow ciacoita -tt””ed and cf
compiainarxt ivtafiiufiath —-parea {are «aw. 3;-=j:=..–.aé;’o;~. .-;:;e.1a
Puiiaiah and the caaci ._””””:jan.t.”.o_t’u_”:-“;’
‘*7.
under 395 iFC and the in inc
5. iiohmauin in 307 c’c
when-: one (was kiiieci in an
encounter cud one in the incident.
on as
person or pemons
;in: c!f_ «tatéfiw were hauled up.
6} . 9512001 where one Neaarkar
attacked on 21.07.2001 and won killed in
actioo of ‘ 3.1’Jf«’dcf6flO6 by the local police. Case was
up against the accused Neaarkar and not on
~ firaoaegttxvho acted in self defence.
to , 17.; The above cases an: noticed only to indicate that
t were instances of other cases as well even earlier to
‘ gcriod and after the period of the case on hand, where
}T_!Iii_flAt.I_3 i_11d_ivi:_1uta_lc as as police had taken action in
J,
F.
preventing the happening of a cum’ e and the ‘
did not warrant filing of muIder.:eaaeo fanc1i_’§_ne._ AV’
favoritism could be alleged in the hi’
the only case in which no _ is
because of the incident ‘-
hot:-tee. V AV t
13. “mAe–m*e’: 111′ g this aspect of
the ofinveatigation
out and also by the GOD
is and from the said moulds it
is gamed out V’that.”‘ttnv1nediately after the incident Sri
t Raehifinsetr has inthnned the same to the
viz., the Sanjaynagar Police station. 011
we Statement or am t 51
the w!io.e
3%
I
£5′
1’!
I
If
§
‘l
__ _. LL _ 4._.L___ 1.’ L …..
include the ne1gh’ ‘ hours, other peraona and aiso Sri
i.e., one of the petitioners and the mother of the
deceased Murugan. In fact the mother has stated that the
43%….
deceased son was a Vagabond. ‘T”ne COD has aiso
further investigations in the matter. Ultimately * ‘
same, a charge sheet dated 23. 10.2C__)02.was K V’ it
cos thmugh Senior APP as agamet thee
for the offences punishable ‘tinder ‘
and 393 of 190. The learned the
charge sheet has adjoumed to
31.12.2932 :–‘-..”.-.!.:_.-‘-.1 closed as
ahateri. Thoiigh3=’theV 4_ an um ymiuu 1
attempteti oondueteci by COD
does such change is not
justifishie: ‘ to state the definition of
mbhery as contained in Sections 390
“-.s11″(i rm aniieiaei that the learned Magieuate has not
the respondent Dr. Krishnamurthy would
of the said details am beyond the
CT ‘ nucu um 1 U i’:
i ééupieme Court has ‘ own the iaw on this aspect and
I
‘3
cited the dec1a1o’ ‘ net in this regard. In the case of ‘
INSTITUTE or MEDICAL SClENC1″¢SA”.'”11lvIlPLg4(‘)V”‘Y%VI§3″E.S§’4 “Uz~.Ij-:_)N=t,V & At
vs. UNION or-‘ INDIA [1996] 11_’tl:§
Supreme court has the
mr-«mm»-.2, 197:3 pzgggzilzgg tab into
the cat — ai”£e’r;ws ‘-ct:-‘.5. 1:-. new-t~,…..t
of cognizable oi’I”s.r.noc, Fifi efinié -pin-san’:1-uma”*” the
Pmcedtues, 4.mlW 1 “WT” ! WW” “°
invcsfiggtse Hon’blc Supmmc
Court (1) of Section 154 of
Cr.P.C. ‘ in wine’ 1: the mforma’ tion
. .3 in& in also nomad’ and thereafter
t’.L.-_–. ” Court has stated that when the
I
3′
1
I’
;=’-
5′
5
:3.
I2-
53
*3
is
5
:
taken, the oonapiainant is giver: prfiT:i”- and-r
190 read with Section 200 of” the C’a’.P.C. to lay the
. V. tiomplaint befim: the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take
cognizance of the ofibnce and the Magistrate is required to
1
‘3
enquire into the complaint as provided in the… .
Cr.P.C. The Magistrate, after ta: ” ‘V
prima facie case instead of issuing it
the ofibnoe under Chapter XII ‘tin émbmit a
r.-.fi,.ert. !f be __..finde not disclose any
rn”x”–*euue– tr; ‘–…..e’— fr:«:*.herV’eeth’¥e:.-3, tn dismiss
the “”~…r.~.’–‘.’-.’.’.. On the ¢…….’–I’
hand. muoniea pea-.a
facie is emjaowma to take
would issue process to the
aectgaed, Court, after explaining’ ‘ the
– that the petitioner without
procedure in not entitled to approach the
Writ Petition and seeking a direction In
r:T’i’ai2,’fti~a’-3 i.’r.te*.i’:’.a*é.e.’: by *…h- GB! I.I;r.hit.=!I_ is 1;¢_J!:- to
into aii or aiferu-“ae and as sake}: % =4-L-.-3-. 9.!
i,_ A_I__
‘ ham High Goult in refusing to grant Ieiiefwas upheid. 1: me
case of GANGADHAR JANARDAN MHATRE VS. STRTE Oi?
:
£1
um ‘IV.
‘ -IJEI
MAHARASHTRA AND one ((200417 soc A’
Supreme court was considering e§eweeo& kt
Petition under Arno’ le 226 of the _
situation where the oft’
I-n-[via
of flee -sag .*’:’q.-em -to of’–1′
after noticing toot tfne ea. regiaiereli on
29.5.1937 committed the
case noticed the
the Cr.P.C. by adverting to
sectione’1e4, 15$ to 203 Gr.P.C. The Hon’ble
Sugeteme noticed that even though there in
t ” no to file a protest petition, the e”
nah:-nn’nn-I-nv|’I-unmIfli1’|:u:|-1-liar
‘- IIIO I-IIIIIII-IV!!!-I J-I-I Ilvolvll-III-D
re-L _” ‘~_ __:-1.. _.’4..’__.
_; __._ ._ 4_2____ __ 1.1.. e__ 4|… :1. ….l…J……_.I…. …-_…1._…_ cu…
Gama: .§’fl_ aVal.|auIU ID “ID muglauuln Illflel I fi.a-I-H.711
17’3(2;)i:§).AofC1-.P.C. when the report is fblwanieti by the Poiioe
explained. Among the said options, the Magistrate
. the option to disagree with the report and also to direct
further investigation under Section 156(3) and require the
I
335-…
«;*’- ceruianlszneu we were cute.’ u..r=.{m .A.:a=:- .
Police to make a further report. The power ”
190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. is also expl(:iiie’d« .to’! a!eie.’V1jthev..A kk
Magistrate can ignore the .’
mveefigafing Ofiicer. Afler jig we * T’
“b flit’: “w’i’it
Petition since “proper temetiy”
without -avqilie:g_’ the Or.P.C. In
the cagepf Vs. STATE 05′ Bil-JAR
AND (:Rs__ though while examining the
power mar same poeition with regard
to of under Sections 173(2), 190(1)
€
I-I VI-Jl I-I
I
I
A.
3236i, was hefre fir i1″ii’h3e .-‘?aiif»’r*’-c;uc- “”*-..-uiii”
l’
a under 32 of the C’nnatii:uiion of indie
for a direction to conduct enquiry by CB1 since
‘ to the petitioner his son was munieled. The
petit:ioner’s son who was working an Additional
I
2%-
Commissioner was found dead in his oflioial ”
19.1.2006 and grievance of the petitioner
Oifimala’ in collusion” with acme _
the e.’l.eo:.s_u_zet1 are pxojeotjng .a12ici’c1e;”‘ ” V
.
%eral men-sentauone . ..
5″
§
I
*2
=1′
1 «’4,-
{I
II
F’
xeauita, the petitioner shoe no
action was takcgioyl inetitioner. The
110111111: 11114. also, after
noticing 156, 190 and 200 of
(:1-.P.C;__ that the petitioner can lay a
oomplaiiit. and as such a Writ Petition
for_c§1mtion.Vt1o GEE investigate i not tenable. In the
to vs, SIATE or xanam (AIR 2001 so
au3?§,”-{E5 nH?.3n’7*.:1.e Sup:-we Co-41+ =– -*’-‘-‘—-‘*–r’ *.h– in
‘tall! I. -I-IIII-‘I Inulluranlswnrv-A
ago seooiiri Fix’? does 11ota”1aea1’_ii.’- tu-
mfoxmaf T ” Htion Iecetved’ ‘firatin time wouidhe the recon!’ ofF’iR,
butiit would however be poaible that more than one piece of
may be received from time in time from diflerent
people in repeat of the same incident and in such situation
I
J:
‘F:
ll
bcfon: submitting the report, the Gfi”ioer is
investigate into all other connected “Ia: i:o ” he
the decision in the case of KASHMER: ‘~ iaovj ‘E-V):-:E.eI’aH:}’uV–“‘
ADMINISTRATION AND ANR.[19ag eh ii’ »
by the learned counsel for ‘ tiletoeeivee, the
H__.’b1e Supreme com case of death in
–L
%% o’.:=*..’..*J._-,r 9.:-,._-1 ..e-e:-..,t13.oI .;,-i_11–.’q:.g,1.,L1_fe1r1’£xV.’ leiiftlafion came to
shield the coxiifniiifit haii bee-ii
filed two sub inspectors and
the eohesehzee refer the matter to the
cm hue he Court befine whom the charge
been’VoiiBtoitted to exercise the power under
Gr.P.C. to direct the can for pmper
The said direction was however issued after
afiefi-‘..g the .%*..e in t.h_1.a.t oooe as the same was
I
*3.
19. Having noticed’ the decisions V’
Hon’bk: Supmmc Court, it wow h x
declaration of law is that this
c.ntmannm’ ‘ g a petition under’ the:
_: Ldjn in direct the (3131 since
—–‘-‘-g in fix: T _%z:: is mph
pmviaiona either far tine
m’ taxman’ the remedies
grievance with mgaxd
to .oa1hphh1ts. the manner of
hlvefighfiiipfiorh charge sheet. In the instant
A ‘mg: to the Home Mininter by his fax
tuning certain cimumatanoca and seeking
Ieauoixfindicated in the mfihfifim is u t Inc
a if – rnnmugr 1;, QB! fa-wr in_ggHunf-Inn The
II ‘ -E I 3
.I-‘J-I’-“-I|4II.ll,’u’.I’.’.Il-IE, Isl-II-t I-IIII 5 lull awn and Inna-quu-an-6 c—- ——–
‘ ‘ er of Police was a ‘batchma’ to and had jumped to
% éonclu.-mus and also that the Head of the con cm in
friendly terms with Dr.S.KrislmamuIthy in whose house the
I
1′!
incident had occurred and as such then: is ”
cover up. The said reason alone appeaxa uh’
and not even a cimumatance near :1?!)
in KASMERI DEVI’a case moat
by Dr.S.Krishnamuxthy__sueh who
‘”‘m–“‘ w— -= o.._,,hiuh-mat gig,
_._.___!_’I L ..
wouuonIyr:%
might have as if it in his
other Ofiioera need not
be at the stage when the
pefifionidwaa happened was. that the
afler the same was
. V. Except for makm’ g a vagu_ e allegation
jam: been threatened by the Police when she
-‘.2-.1i.ai.ir..m., no :.a.!.1.I_-ampt has been
to art} a “‘iittr=” -o”‘”}a”-rut or uH”u’r.:’:laia to
the Ofiiee” ran in the hierarchy. Even the date on winch’ ‘
‘ went to San1aynagar’ Police Station is not mentioned in
the petition nor is this reason stated in the representation
I
12
‘5}
mad e by the learn_ ed counsel to the Home V’
under the instructions of the pefifienen. A
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on
to file a complaint under a * L’
..*’=act o..d. …a-.’…g t…e ‘he,-91
was before the iefelence of the
we to been mean. it
was have given additional
as stated by the
Homes1.pmee¢oam;1ioi;e case of ‘I’.T.AN’l’HONY. In this
g .”‘rici:ir.~e¢i. above, though it is stated in the
15 other labourers along with
lvllpa’ I-lb!-3-yl-I -.Iv ‘Ii’oI-fly -Io’-I up .——–u– — _—— —_-…—.—. .–.–….._
Vnvlzuur-nVi’..~;=ii~n.. n in _ 1′; id in ha 9 nnrh-:rl’ In-m_ ;g;n_:_3 wgflg
_….-_ 1.’|…” ..
I’
them ‘i3aV_1ive either approached the Police on their own or at
theurinatance of the petitioners and as such except for the
” gévennentn made and the assumptions and aurmieea stated,
no other material has been placed by the petitioners before
I
J5
6-
u€fii7I’fi Gt BIT-Sulu1n.|u|u”‘1″uu4u: , uuuu Sf
the investigating authorities when the ”
pmgxes. Further the cliange-sheet’*’wa,s’ the, it it
Magistrate as far back as on 23. gi\i ‘”V~:.
having by then filed these * L’
.2-..’.-Jar.-.-. of th.-Lr rég,..t..I.I m _ either
– — — is–5″‘–.” as-hk antler
the c:;r.r-.c. as in
the case oi”_Al;i.u SCIENCES,
JANARDHAN MHATRE
and for} me: amen. Thetefinve, without
exemiaiiigeuehi for mandamus in the manner
fer that too with the fragile allegation
” i§ietn”1e«_.of étion a-.’cam_ ‘ at the investigating agency
:1
“‘1-\’
– nguld net be
“‘3
I-lb
..a.’..’.’l.’.3.-.”!’.’.’i..”.’!99.’_
_. -1.rin_ic-n c.-Jzpgeeeed by the
I
3ii_’l’fTi’I”.’7″‘I’.”a \.A.I|.l.I I. iwuuu us
the oounaei ibr the petitioner eonds the
of the COD would indicate inconsistencies, the
cannot in any case be examined’ in this Writ Petition
and as pointed out by the I-Ion’ble Supreme Gourt, it can
I
42.
only he as per the pmoedun: available *
even any further investigation is onlgnundcr K ”
Hence, the petition to the extent dream dtarddw
to refer the case to the CB]
…f_L 111. _.”t outhorities
V..V…..’V’ ‘t-.’;§.*”d=’t.ila’.:.h befozzz i-
had d;d~. and-~ Sectrioii
342, 185: ind deceased Niurugan
and whenh in such a situation, the
queatioh’ of grant of compensation also
wd”‘1;'”\H19t A’
t do f;h§..Ic8|flf, the following:
l’\I3’I’\Ii’I’3
.’:£.l.3.!=£.:lfl!a1
i] For the reasons and conclusions meached supra,
both the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.5250T/02 and
€i6,’.71,N_).2. oJe dimloged. discharged.
9 :r:—
ii) Partichobearthcirownoostn.