xn THE HIGH COURT or KARNAEAKA, BANGALGRE DATED THIS THE 28TH nay OF MARCH, §§béfi= PRESENT . ' a V THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE"MAN$ULA CHEfl3UR "
CRL. pmwxmxous No.3869/01:5/W 369éf2oQ2 §mfi*
V3477/o2_ = ‘/
BETWEEN
1
MALLIKARJUN*s:nnAiiNePéA4
SHEELAVANTHARA..’ 3″‘ *'” *
5/0 SIDDALINGAEA sHEELAvANrHA3A
37 22535 R/¢ E KG ezafs ‘ *’
MARUTEINBGAR =
KfipficHI”RbADx
BELGAflM¥1§ ‘-v
‘wmafinmrfifxa R§cHA£YA-M§rn
8/0 ‘RACEAYYA. B.MATH
1: 43 rmAns R;c”H No 826/5
PG
*MAauTH:nAsAn;,”xUnucHx ROAD
3ELeAuM+1s
K-R,PRABHU s/0 Y A RUDRASHETTY
Ream fiBOUT 56 YEARS
RfAT’c.H.No.61, 5TH MAIN
355 cnoss, SARASWRTHIPURAM
MYSORE
.3 ./Q
4 YEAR
1/2
I NEW
III}! I\
1’13’. H.
U!
I
AGED ABOUT 5
R
‘D/EN’ Ti R13 75
Eli. I-loIoW\l’oiul
EAMAKRTSHNA.
0′!
HI
EXTENSIQN,
E FE I
T TI
IN CRLP.3092 OF
:I\l’lI’\ (I
U1′!-El’-F3
2002
n
In)
BABASAB RAJESAB PAKALI
.5./Q BAJESAB Emfiafifil
41 YEARS, R/A TALLURA VII-I-AGE
SAVPEAT 5′.’ I ‘£’A.’!’.aL’K ,
BELGAUM DISTRICT . ‘.
‘ IN CREE». 7 “‘ “””””‘
(By Sri : S K _V_EN”KAT_ — V” ‘ ‘
MID I
swarm or KARNATAKA ‘D”
32 MARKET poLIc3_sTAwIQN.}._’_ *._ ,
BELGAHM DISTRICTi’;_ ;’ ‘«uV R_RESPONDEN
T comon
‘<} '»;N ALL PETI
1'10!'-.'$
:3" Sri. C.H. JADflAV : say IR A13 PETITION$)
cRL;2.3369i2ao: Is FILED U75. 432 ca.§.c. BY
THE ADVOCATE *3oR,;mH3_"9EwRs; pnayxne THAT THIS
HoN'BLE, counr 'MAYQ.3E' ELEASED T0 QUASH mnz
COMI?I;AINTj. &"*E'IR"–_IN CR';1\I0v;'221/96 on THE FILE 0.?
THE MARKET VPQLICE smamxon, BELGAUM, FOR THE
orrsmcms.PUfl:sHA3Lg"u/ss. 403, 409, 477{A), 457,
471,«42o R/wpsEc.34.1pc AND AFTER CHARGE suamm,
ggexsimggp 'Ag .cc }94/2000 on THE FILE ov THE
JMEC., I; COURT} EELGAUM IN ORBER TO PREVENT THE
,%BUSE as Paccsss es couaw.
.c3:;p.3o92/2002 5 FILEB 3/3. 432 ca.§.c. BY
” T’I’I’IE”v4>_AD.VQ§I£.-TE FOR THE PETRS. RATING THAT THIS
. “HON sag ¢5fiRT MAY BE PLEASED TD QfiASH THE
. COMPLAINT’ a FIR IN CR.N0.221/1996, on THE FILE
“€.>E’ V_ “F;AP;KET POLICE STATION , BELGAUM FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S. 403, 409 477(3), 467,
468;… “471, 420 R/W. 34 OF IPC. AND AFTER CHARGE
»AA SHEET, REGISTERED AS CC.NO. 94/2000 on THE FILE
‘w_QF JMFC-II counw, BELGAUM.
CRI..P.3477/2002 IS FILED 11/3. 482 CR.P.C. BY
I’1fi El |’I’| DO
THE .:”~;’a.’:’v’O\…..-a’.’a.’:-.. FOR TH E-‘E’..u.R. .I.’:\.AYING ‘1’”u.n”J.’ THIS
HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASI-I THE
COMPLAINT & FIR IN CR.NO.221/1996. ON EH51 FILE
9: NHEKET EQLICE SEAEEQN, EELEAEE wEG3fi_I£E
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/ss.4o3, 409 47j}A),V.457,
Ace M1-r no – “-
-.100, -.u.;., -“.0 R;’W. 34 9- IPC. }¢~m_.AE’TEBEV–.C?.A_1?.CE
SHEET, REGISTERED AS cc.No.94/2000 om THE EILE of,
4..-no—‘.– -nu -u.
aJ_1VF€-Ii CGURT, EELGAUTI Iii UREER ‘bl’
OF PROCESS SCENE OF OFFENCE’ T
These CRIMINAL spsrxmioxs ¢¢m;ng ‘dfi”*£5:
HEARING, this day, the .§’:<':u_rt t.ha_ f.re'1lowing:'=
bard 'their
petit1oné:s;Eha.s¢ e1so_:ne"iea&ned 5.9.9.
'W2- Theeé three crlwwbetitione arise out of
reg;i,strat.ieri:'j'-of »E.a4V%":,:_.é'se "against the petitioners in
F' C 1i!e.V94.,/Op …e -..-._f.':., II eourt,
.1"s.:—elqam, in C::f=.r~Io.221;'19% of Iviuket Eolice
'v.,Stai:i.en., '».Eelgaum, for offences punishable under
"3_ geetiefis gas. 409, 477(A), 467, 468, 471, 420 r/w
Eectibn334 IPC.
-EAEUSE »
.4,
Except accused nos. 2 3′. 3 bus conductcir-sj, all
other accused were of the ran1cV.&..__’L:~f’-iésiipeiice
constables as on the date of rezjis¢;:re.fi§’or3E’
czrime number against them” “far ‘
offences.
4. It is not en tile
complaint of “xvthe above
crime number ii on 29.3.1995
allegingh. hfih.i”i91wgi+hshts pertaining to
the 1;: the custody of the
were misused by these
poiaice’ collusion with two has
.513 3 .h.ppe::ent.’.3g eecuse no 2 ……=ed during tne
pend;r;.é§~ ef the petitien en 31 1.63 and the
ab_2~.’iies against him.
As on the date of .fiJ…1.ng of the Crl.
“*~3etitions under section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking
sineshing as: th
was also filed in the concerned police atation.
Records submitted to the Court by thegwpéeitijtrtoners
would reveal a departmental enquiry V
against the complainant xVal;1_.e£_i;ing;
that he was careless and
not keeping the bus A-}.;;r;.:_;n£s~ _sai5e«:._;’castody
allowing m.1′.s-1.:ser of has ihwarranjtis by the
staff. As a was given minor
1-n-In-i as an? AF *.~..m-gm»-.=’r._ ..-I n’ W!-‘I-H”: it 15:15 1»-+- n+- r’i:’|”nz’I
‘ElIflLTGXIH€iI W ‘ \’|& ‘h””‘<v'Ifi Kmdj T ' gfiflfi 'Iii? I §l\f£('WIL 'HIIB§fflC El \IFOI| W€"HI
'an.-
.I I!’ -1 Ana-5! _ _”V _ _V c’; .n_1_ _
‘5 . 53 1 L53! .’._ . ‘.I’.’,.1l.LVfi’ J-.-“E SQ ‘~=Ca1: £13 13113
P)
enquir=g_i*s_V;oonoernec§i.._ V”*’1*ni;_s Vwould only go to show
that iéhen H was launched against him,
sinmltaneoasl1_f*._ ‘a«.___2’c:«o:i1plaint was registered suo
moto V_*(far;vc”LaJ4:é;J:V””i}\Vrho was facing a clepartmental
fleixqairy, againaitv the accused persons in question.
75v’. ,W’n’en t e Court go s throag the eatire
“‘«reco’rcZ,s3 of the c.c. as stated. above, it is
x T noiticed that except submitting the charge sheet
it the Court along with the necessary
investigation papers; right from the time of
investigation till the time of filing the charge
sheet, entire investigation was done by the very
same police inspector against whom _;;epv;L’1.”i:.:ne’ntal
enquiry was launched with regard ‘to .jr;:ivs1iso’s_4’i of,
warrants. The a.1legaticn'””i’s. t1§.at_..”:t’hese’–f;:>oV1ice’
constables colluding withiconc:1’1m_Atcrs..
of these warrants thoiugh-~..V_theA”ojfficer “i1i=oherge “of
the poiioe station 1;a(Vi”..’I1t3§I_£ ‘ii-,|!§Ll§!fi th, tau
lm
‘m’:n-V-:n+-a +”.|’\ “‘1″|¢ ai’;\'”.!’!,15’I£+’$1H13.駒
V’T%|L1.I.%H WW’ ‘d..’i W I’? D
7. f!.’1:’e_V ‘_’J.earne_d:fccnns_eJ,_’ the petitioners
though; of the Court several
points.’Tliicei¢f:.3n.on–eciisc1o*sui’e of custody of these
wai’:a:;-ants’ »the__:”petitioners and admitted and
-i-:1r\+- ” “‘I”r\.I’fl I-1-In-hen-1 -V-nn|.rI|-luau:-u-I “P’\al\IIl£!:|\f\:Q 14 1-1
” uIu_a?||oJ Iv ‘ ‘-u$cf’h’Tr’i:i’., J: In §JrIIrI ‘wIII€§$ GI’-:f\::¢[v§$§5ulx ya EIIJIIQ .&-J1
ooorefioe with the prccecuire, the need not
“gone at this stage for the simple reason
“~tha.t” ‘ the complainant who was facing departmental
AA ggenquiry could. not have fairly investigated the
V silegations made against these persons by lodging
a complaint. Even if he faced a departmental
enquiry he could have lodged a complaint
initiating prosecution against the guilty,” As he
was interested in the matter, in other”aor$e},in
the anxiety of proving his innocence-fiiti 4_
possible for the interested person to eaedle the i=
guilty against the innocenty Zoii
8. In that viefi” of thefigmatterp was the
investigation weep jooapletely ioonei by an
interested person .whoffWaa£ raging departmental
enquiry, Idezéjioitégijf ‘V possibility 01:’
the aaio§_iperaon;{=heing;V_hiaaed during the
inveatigationa._–orhereforei placing reliance on
‘Apex Court in AIR 1995 so
2339 STATE or naarmm especially
a 4nm_”After considering the facts and
:vv:”»«.oirVcanx’netanoea of the case, it appears
‘to as that there is discrepancy in the
V’-iclepoaitions of the No.2 and 3 and in
“g the absence of any independent
C’.
inspire confidence about the
reliability of the prosecution case.
We have also noted another disturbning
feature in this case. PW-3, Siirij
Chand, head Constable axrestedf’the”
accused. and en eeereh being i.~
by him a pistol and the cart1:j,_d§g’e.e’:ig§?eifet T
recovered from the accused. jv2ia._5VVVe’1j¢. A
his complaint e.’-._ :”‘£’T.’ii::;-“ta—t
inforrnation report’ was’-A.i’odged.v–“–tah€1 “the.
case was ini~t_yi”eted.v. . V He
c:orr;pJ.a.1′.nant shouJ._c§.__ not.» __ have” « gtogeeded
with the ‘ihveetigetioh he: the case.
But it appears to as thet he was not
only the oom©iainen§t4\wtfiie case, but
he 3;.-“:er:’ti_e With. the” ‘ mrestiqation
eh 4 ‘V ‘ t V s 161
VJ’1:’_.”Ev’5.’.’C..{*1:;;g«uoh’.V»p_teo’ti;n:.i-.».i;’1r.Vic::Az1s’VL_ 4a.’reV’~–.
allowed. State is at libL3rty..hto4Lifnfestig’ate:hthe”-
matter afresh from th-:.-_’staqc=,_ of c:c;:=§;sl.aViVi:’1t.:} u”‘.3.a’i.1
bonds/surety bonds stah’&:dancelVled’;’h