High Court Karnataka High Court

H S Bhaskar vs Satyawwa on 19 March, 2008

Karnataka High Court
H S Bhaskar vs Satyawwa on 19 March, 2008
Author: N.Ananda
I "run I-!.0N'BLE %M1wusriG5;MN,% ANAi§5};.A _v  

_ C I .' -P "   95%«%' WL4L 
1: H-S-Bhakar %      

Age: Majxjr 3  _  ~_  '
99¢:  6f.:Goka'k.§Jli_l1a -

.  Egg:   '  '

3.. _ _' 
 - V .A.g-3; Mgjgr
 -0c¢::1;a!botzr~--9ifi1oer

A .'v'.£..H

"  '  -
 ' 

"  % % , _ % .:..,I-E'.t':_t_it'it_3n¢:.'1~:: :

     R;B.De'al;1pande._Advoca. T icy

 



N!

n. LII"\;

1.

Smtfiatyawwa
Wfo. Mudakappa
Age: Major A. 3
R10. Ramgad Area, Gokak F”a1ls”–._
Gokak, District: Belga.i1m__. ” ”

~. . Reéqpondents

2. The State of Kamataka

(By Sri H.Hanumanthaiayajppa., VH(}G_P«.for R2; Sri Shivaraj
P.Mudhol, Advocate fbrfili _

This Criminal ptstitionw in fi’.ed_ under ‘section 482 Cr.P.C..
praying to se1;__. ‘aside 2: the “‘cQrder».t___da.ted 22.11.2004 in
Cr].R.P.No,53/2G02,’_on.the file of Addl. District 8: Sessions Judge,
Fast ‘l’raoik Ctdutftllv, and order dated 20.10.2001 in
C.C.No.9/2001:; up the me ‘er t.ttc”Pr1.c:ivi1 Judge (Sr.Dn.) at C.J.M.,
r3c1gtsturncat’»er:tt:7-

made the foIloWit_1_g: V.

zl-reefiomievnt filed a complaint under secticm zoo

2’~.Th’ie :i4Vi’tt_z__:E’12’.nt:i’t>’r final hearing this day. the Court

2 ofieneea punishable under sections 143.

” t1_4**r, 3923, 324, 427, 341 r/w 149 we and section 3 (1)

” V Atreci’-iee} Act,

Vscgeeaulea Gates and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention

1.89 (93! ahert, ‘th… A H tannin t

a¢’I–‘i -.–.°–…….._

petiiioners. on the iiie of t”Lri.x’3J’Tv*ii Judge {Sr.£”:i1.) as C-Jt’v’.’ -t

2 Belgaum. The iearneti Magus’ traiae alter” reeoltiiefi sworn

I). 0/A .

‘J ,. – – A
V ‘¢-JE/’*’¥VV”*”‘

« L#;”‘IfI°’fID.Ir!

U)

u. wm*,;l=ir.a.-at *–“N1 “mm-T.-as 1.2.1

accused chaiiengeci said order if! ~%as:7’ifai6i’2..:r:=us.’__

No.53] 2002.

piifiishable under 33$-1} .,’..–. ……
and Scheduled Tribes “4iF1fi’eveisii§mi:1] A-t, am, are
triable by of Court has
held, in ta’ 202(2) Cr.P.C.. the
upon complainant to
examined them on oath.

Themfem; the’1eei;:je£l ‘*eeéeiona Judge has set aside order

by.’ and remanded the matter to

-.é…_ ” ….-.=.g.*an’9.t.e tn I!’;1.31.’.|I!1 statement; of witgeegea

‘*”””p1aint am’. pr-mu.-..-.d in ¢i;u””””s..-‘{‘.u’1″€’!=’.”.E’-.€.’.”‘;. with

‘T’l2r1ere§oreV,41’~petitioners are before this Court.’ ‘

I have heard learned Counsel for petitioners.

Cc-1:n%l M 1-11.! m en.-.e n_nti leglnfl HCGP for I!-

«lb

O n lQJ’I’l

a. n uuaki be seea from mm ……t.
1
J

ailegeci ofienees puniahabie
323, 324, 427. 341 riw 149
punishable under section 3(1) (x]«”ot; the * 3
and Scheduled Tribes of 1939;
which is triable by of as Special
Court under the Act. aesaions Judge

has held ofiiiplovfoo ‘te:”§$ecii9i:i 202(2) Cr.P.C., the

I»-……m-.-.m aw complainant cg

for petitioners has contended

e.statem.’:uVf of complaillant does not disclose an ofibncc

U-5..-guns: –

,………… __..=.__….

nn :2: man :3 (1; 1;; offlze Caotea

as’

_”.a-;e=…,:s m..:I.. -43…. .-.4′ A4.-..-..-.;-H-..

The Counsel would aiao submit. avennents of

AA eofiploint are vague and in respect of very same incident.

” had filed another complaint against some other

accused for offences punishable under sections 143, 147.

148, 323, 324, 427, 341 r/w 149 IPC. Those person were

-3 .

‘.._’I ___’l __.-……..i .. “l’I.___”;.— -3-‘ –.——.-o’
‘IT’iI=l.I uuu uuqu1i.’tn’i. nuwcnuu.-., .l.u 1:: pout

there cannot be two oompiaintsn in ti1coe”*oIiiioun1etonoee;

impugned proceedings are liable be:-q§;eehe_c{‘l…’ it ff-L

I find ih” ‘ ‘
persons. Even othezifiiee; ‘pnniohaiaic under
section 3 (1) 4(“§’ti.__()f and Scheduled
Tribes is not alleged
cannot be said impugned
registered against other persons
related incident and same set of

elreggeea.

_ Counsel for petitioners would submit

.’ late-.fmentsj__ complaint as also sworn statement of

are vague. In fact, time of alleged ofibnoea is not

it ” m_.,;;_n_ in complaint. /) n

Nr ,

Oh

i oaizirt *”‘ress “*3” o-‘iuflr. on t..’:esc su¢;#.-1&9:-$3:-.2.é.r.-59;’ _

a complaint fileci under section 206 ..

triable by Court of Sessions,

only after all witnesses cited..__in

before trial Court.

6. Therefore, I do in the oxide?

passed by cnmlnal’ = ‘
petition fis’ is made clear. if
complaina;ii’t.::’i:vi§é:~7;; Witnesses as may be
by he hall consider averments
of of complainant and

a|.r..I=i*.’..-“z.I:-:nt-. Sf’ in terms of sections 203 as 204

._ Iéiooeas’; are ifiE’I”Tu uo ‘pe’:i’&”r.rs. they an a.

Iii:~erty’to- any remedy availa In to them by iaw.

Sd_/-

Judge