IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
DATED THIS THE 13"" DAY oI= JULY
p BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRs..IusTIce MANJuI.A"c:-IE
CRIMINAL PETITION INO.>342;4i20i)S
BETWEEN:
m
f (§Y SRLPADMANABHA MAHALE. SR.COU
Mzs.c;ouTHAM s. RAJESHWAR. Am/s.)
MR. LSUDARSHAN PRASAB~.._' -
SIO.LATE LBHAVANI SHAN%€AR.RAO
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS f _ I
occ: SENIOR ENGEM'-;ER'--{CIV. ,"L)"N P-GL.
PRESENTELY AT 'SURIQKS-HA' I F-'LGQR
KODIALGUTTA EAs.T-~---,fA - :
KODlALBA£E.."E?C3ST=:_ I *
MANGAL_C'RE§575003. k g
1.
.MR.M.M.'$H'i":'i':IY
s:o.3;IvI.sIiIETT*r* I
AGED _ABOUT--«.6_1'VYEAR$_ % I
occzg cowsuu AN1} NPCL.
mo. 'F?_ANCHAJANf*'.'A*'<«. I
099: BAI.,Ie.A S-IJPERMARKET
<2:-.I==IIvA.I'A»'.,'\I*lIA:,i"A\__'AKU!IIlARI snmov,
I.D'.€3,..M.,,S'ARVGTHAM PAI.
I URGES ABGIJT 59 YEARS
. ' QCCI. SPE-.vL'3lAL LAND ACQWSITION OFFICER.
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
QEVELOPMENT BOARD
I. , KEADB INDUSTRIAL AREA.
~ . BIMKAMPADY
V.-In
In
ANGALORE-57501 1
..PETlTl0N.ERS
NSEL FOR
!..'i;lV.:If'§..V % u
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PA£3UB¥DRl POLECE STATION
UD§JP¥ TALUK & DESTRECT
2. MR.OD! MUGGERA T
SIOLATE THANEYA MOGGERA-A O
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, _
occ: COOLIE O 1 %
RiO.THAJE, YELLUR V|!..LAGE%,»
UDUP¥ TALUK & D:$TR:cT__
_ ""'f'~.:'-MRESPONDENTS
(BY SRl.B.R.S.BHAT, HCGP FORJRJ
SR£.K.CHANDRA_NATHAMRICS-A’,-A§:)V. ‘r;oR»R.2)
THI$’CR4!_£Vi*£?駧.L’ F?_E’;..T¥T!VON”i,$ FELED UNDER SECTION
482 CR{P,C«ii___;»’TO” ‘QVUAS_H”” ALL PROCEEDINGS m
cR.NQ..s2/2695 V-FILE’-OEVSPECEAL AND SESSEONS
Jums, uDLIr;%=>: CZOMMENCES ON THE BASIS OF THE
COMPLAI-NT. E3:5;?ED, ‘2O.1;e2oo5 LOGGED av THE 2″”
RESPONDENT”. ‘i=fzR»~”No.s2i2oo5 BY THE 13*
RESPONEJENT Pc:Li::£%._%
OO_;O”w%s C$~?v.¥wEV\}!O£l’»ifi\:L PETITION COMENG ow FOR
HEATR¥:§*££3 TH¥S DFfi”;’THE COURT MAQE THE FOLLOWING:
Q.B..D_§.B
O’ ..He:afc§ the teamed counsei for the petitioners so also
éVhé=§_eai§1ed counsel for the 2″” respendent and the Eeamad
‘Lf=’ov”ern:nent Pieader.
2. This petition is presented by three petitiono:rso.who
are arraigned as accused in Cr.No.82l20D5 on
of 2″” respondent, dated 21.8.2005.
3. The contents of thepetition ‘aIso’;na ».Anne:r(e.re’e,e
are perused.
4. On going throirgh ” and 2″‘
petitioners are the .–~«:.o’ff«’.j’V_~iiiegarjuna Power
Corfioration and the 3″‘
petitioner Officer. working for
Karnetake -!nVdostriei~A’reesv-Deveiopment Board at Mangaiore
(for shcwthe Kmoef). it
it Sf ‘fire. geneeis for this complaint seems to be
‘eocfVi§ie:§.ti:on” ofciiertain lands by the KIADB. Mangaioro, for the
piurc-ose~ ofiesitablishment of NPCL, in the said area where are
¥ands”..V__e~re acquired. in this connection, when an
.4\drri’inistrative Office seems to have been set up by the
V’ i%3PCL, some complaint came to be iodged by the Panchayath
concerned, contending that the Administrative Buiiding Biocir
was put up on Sy.l\io.253l5A without obtaining necessary
license from the concerned Panchayath. In this counnection.
there was correspondence between the Panche§ath_;V:-~.KViAQB_V
and other Revenue Heads of the “–:Distri:,::fs’;V.eth-
Ultimately. the concerned authority
wrote a letter to the Deputy «Contmissicner; ‘As£§ietent”e
Commissioner and Taheildar.e’el§in§_then1._n§tto ctenzolish the
building. even if it wa$’~c’ons«tructed;._irrithout euchlflicense, as
no such license was necee§u’a’r’y.c:;i’s:V ti1.e_:Vl’axnf;llns__’_’.rivere acquired by
the KIADB. :He§i:ever;;A’trrel the approval of
license whether such a license
was requir.e?o’i§to “the”l°anchayath before putting
up such * yélnjrway, this putting up of an
Administfat_ive.vBlccl{‘eeehie to have kindled the feeling of fire
locaijlitieie who’Se..V:len_qs seems to have been aeqnired and
there some support from the busy bodies of that area as
A .w’ei_lV_.1as4c’e.,n’te.rid’ed in the correspondence between flue NPCL.
Kl}%D8.–.ancithAe Revenue Officials. when image stood as it is,
itteisiiniaticed eat on the some by an commrs
reprlesentafive so atso KIADB. rwuested the command
gioiice to give protection to the officiaie when suwey work had
to be conducted, which is part of the acquisition. They
anticipated obstructions and even physical violence from the
occupants of the tends, therefore such protection was asked
and the same was accorded.
6. As a matter of fact. in
M.M.Shetty. one of the empioyeses-,__’of
complaint on 20.8.2005 contendirfi-:that”wtienrthe
aiong with his officials wenE’0V_te._V.an area calio’d1.iIj(oiactrur in-”
Yeilur vitlage. at about 10.00 «ifivltpevrsons i.e.
accused and otherse.._”V:i’ncEL’t_dir;_g.0′. “thLe’A”0’~C§ram Panchayath
members. forming unIAas_arfi.;:.’Van intention of
committing enté.re£1_ttte.jedtn’in’ietretive office and took
away:V?Rs.650!},t’a’pa:rt “”dantaging the Tape-Recorder and
other iterrzsf * VAcco’ro’§ng:”‘§o’him. one Vinay Kurnar Sorake is
oehifno the unl’a\:r(§u§ aesembiy instigating the assembly to do
e.=x:c’t; otniteonfawful act. Based on this complaint Iodged at
I e:0io'<f;_:.Vrrt Cr.No.81I2005 came to be registered
1
\i
eg’a.inst__*1’1-oeersons and others. However, we do not find the
name” 2″” respondent Odi Muggera as one of the 11
‘ e?’c.::tt$ed and we do not know who are the other accused as of
get, in Cr.NO.81£2005.
7. In C:.No.82/2005, the complaint came to bejfodged
on 22.a.2oo5 at about 4.00 PM on the come:.a%.i;§.tte$ei:2?”
respondent against these three petitionersMelieeiltg-thett’
10.8.2005, in the afternoon, the e’ooHus’e-do
assistance of 10 to 15 people, tre’e.pee_eed
forming untawful essembty end.:’?:’epproeched–the e’e:hi;3Ee’inant.V’
That aeart, complainavmewas_.s.:z7:e§gg*fLiii3!_.!ifte§f’ ‘fromVthat place
atorzg with others and and then left.
when he retgrr}_e<§,_'horr§e'.Vheiitgifttj' net. trvife and chitdfen
and Ultimateiy, he
found piece. According
to the – wife, the present petitioners
threeteféed4'thefi1"V§éith'A'd.t§e—-'..eohsequences if they do not agree
to v;:c*et;e the hooee iméeeeiateiy, and therefore. they vacated,
es"'t"theE*}3et'i'ti.oners were to a hurry to conduct their survey
%e~ior§:;' "
“8_;V._h3As on 22.8.2005, theze were two compteinte todged
he§e_”‘{?r.Ne.81£2805 and C:’§.No.82l2€}95 one against the
t’ eteneheyeth members and other viliagers and the other
egaénet these three petitioners ie. two offéoiais from NPCL
and orze from KEADB.
9. A careful perusal of the complaint in Cr.No.82I2005
would indicate that the alleged incident or offence tookyplece
on 10.8.2005 and by next afternoon, he was ab!ei..to44’rh’:e’et.;’
wife and children at Karkala. At any cost, b3r_t’2.;:.8;2’r3{l’.5.”th-iel
so-called offence against the co:hpla’ir.antii_anttfiteterrhily.
members was done, at the instance Aof__tilr-ace three ‘petiti’on”e’re.’
It is not the case of the cornpitezinanthyhthapt .;.lléllIVVAV’Eti’reetened”‘
them with dire consequences.&,lf”t’sei_were_to lodge e-‘complaint
and therefore rm 22.8.2uC)’0’?.>f_’h”ee._<i:s»¢';iv up his nerves to
lodge a complaint; if had happened
on 1o.a.2o_o5}e tn«.=.e;Ltp;?:o:;;1p:aiei:%anVt'tried to wait til! the
compleint came to be lodged.
After he lodged at the tnstance of 2″”
petitions: -l9l.M.S1h:etty,x:in. are afternoon this Cr.No.82I2005
:’wae” 2″‘ respondent. The very correspondence
petitioners indicate that they were
apprehehclihfi hall along obstruction, violence from the iocat
of survey number which was acquired and
:”‘”.epprehendlng all such obstacles while conducting the survey,
. had approached me concern-ed authorifics seeking
police protection. Having regard to this background. it week!
only indicate that as a countertetast to Cr..No.81I2005,
Cr.No.82i2005 came to be registered at the instan¢é.:§!.V_2″”
respondent.
10. Under that
quashw on ma fiie oi Padubidfi Po ¥is§ $tati’q:§;. Map!
Mangaiore.