in THE man couacr or KARNATAKA AT _
BATED THIS THE 1 1th DAY 01? JUNE~,..3u(_)§,3'..,/.11: _: "
BEFORE
THE HONBLE MR.JUS'E'I4CE SU;$'HAsHTVB';-gij; A'
CRIMINAL REWSION PE*1*:ifIoN Nd.~2(§0i'2_o6'7
BENNEEN:
!vI.K.Sa11jec:va Sh€tty=,V V " Q
S/o late Mahaba}a':3.1;getty;:__ g
"Suma Ni]aya"__,-N0. ' '
10%: Main, Isticrose, '
Shankam Nagazg 3 V -- *
Bangalore-S50 PETITIONER
&. 00.. Advs.)
AND:
P.'::.;N<5.4453, _
' ~Ra§agopa}a1:age:a1f ' Police Station,
Rajagopalafiagmg - . .
Bangaisarc. -- . f -- 1=
, RESPONDENT(By Smtfiadrunnisa, Adv.)
“‘1*i;is, Cr1.RP is filed u/5-3.397 R/W 401 of Cr.P.C. praying
V V set aside the orécr dates} 25.11.2006 passer} in
, :.C.C.No.10693/2003 on the filc of the XIX ACMM. Bangalore.
This mvision fitifition coming on for admissien this day.
the Court made the following}:
e:1’v~–several times. It does not disclose as 13;)
.V’~w*hef_fh’er_ “for the Complainant is present or not. The
accused is police constable, it is not know}; as to
‘file I»;’c1i<:e Censtabie whc is in service is not served and if
feels unahie to execute the Warrant against the Police
" ~:VVVVC"e§d1stable, it is strange as to how the warrant shauld be
executed against the ordixxazy person. in my opinion, the order
S.
This revision. is directed against the
compiaint on the gmund. that, complainant nofi
absent, N.B.W, not xetmned, f12r1:11er:e1d:Ae;j:s’;’ d
2. Learned emmsei for the peeficfier 1 e’
advecate fer the con1p1ainaJ3i’V”e’e».1:x:1§fs:s ‘ p1e’se1ft, hdajV’es;er, the
eompiaint was not presenfand foe steps. He
also submit$__tb:a§, acezgsed Poiice Constabie. He was
served remained absent. Though
he is in s;e1vice,VN5f_£§Fsi.. A1§;a1s’:2.ct”‘;)ee11 executed.
3_._ Thedfhiiexj ‘V–.S1ieef”ehcWs that. the complainant has
dieinieeal ei’.V’fi;e.e:’ecmpiaint is on the gmund that, N.B.W. is not
is not sustainable and requires reconsideration. The impugned
erder is quashed. The Magismate is directed to permit the
-»..?fl_.{%
petitioner to take fresh steps and also take 10
get the warrant executed against the accused. Q N M
Accoréingly, this revision ‘
payment ofcost c:fRs.2,{}0{),’-. ; V’ ‘ . Vv .« V’
At this stage, learned for the
respondent submits t11a”f:,_._”fEhe .%€%$;$f}fi:§¢;:Eif’«woulréaigpcar before
the Magstxate, if the dat¢VVi_s;? Boflivjjpgaxties are dimcteé
to appear be§o1″«é”__§v§agiSt:Ea’teVV_(;n 26.6.2008.
Sd/-.’
Judge