_1_
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 14?" DAY OF SEPTEMEEA VS
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. P.D. DINAf<ZA'RA--N.,ACHIEEAJVIUSTICE
AND %
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTI~CE S'Af3VH_AT?ITTéT"
WRIT APPEAL N0. 30'?-9,/T?.,"QQ_€")M§;4§(§MAi5'O'LICEE)
BETWEEN
SMT MAMATHA : _ 7.
W/O HARINATH
AGED AiBOlJT_43.YEA-RS, .
R/AT;'NO_'"--«.14'3'3.L, PI'PfELNE.,RO'AD'
vIJAYA..NA.GAR
BANGALORE' 5:, 560040
...APPELLANT.
(By Sri TITGNESHVTAEA, ADV., )
"-A'.__THE:"SvTA'VfE'"CF KARNATAKA
A BY I_TS7$ECRETARY,
""'-HOAMEDEPARTMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA
.. ,_BAN"GALoRE 560 001
THE TAHSILDAR,
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK,
BANGALORE
BANGALORE RURAL DIST.
-2"
3 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
BIDADI POLICE STATION
BIDADI
BANGALORE RURAL DIST.
(By Sri :BASAVARAJ KARREDDY,'IGVOIiERNMEi$iT' . 0, "
ADVOCATE )_: * A
WRIT APPEAL IS E1LED"'u[ps A Oi-"Ti-:iOE': i<AfRNATAi<A
HIGH COURT ACT PRA'r1NG'§"T0.A ,i'SE;TSAs1DE THE ORDER
PASSED IN THE wR1T_V%PET1T:oriT rii'c.2'0'.E§93/2009 DATED
20/07/2009.
THIS' wRirT i¢I':£?JVF3EI/:fi:i'i;.:'_'('3O_M_--!i\ViV'(3 UP FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING. ON ITHIS;':_RjVD}\'Y,A:_:"S;/KBHAHIT 3., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING} A. A I I
JUDGEMENT
“i’rThie’:’Ap’peai is filed by the petitioner in W.P.
HH::”.”.””‘M’Oi2,O.$93VfiO09 being aggrieved by the order dated 20″‘
2009, wherein the learned single Judge of this Court
‘:’_4’iTa–s-Owdeciined to exercise power under Article 226 of the
‘Constitution of India and has reiegated the petitioner
\s/*
-3-
(appellant herein) to have recourse to the proceedings
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
Accordingly, the learned single Judge has
to the petitioner ~ appellant herein’ in_th.’3’t Var~.’d. hes ‘
disposed of the writ petition.
2. The appellant he,rein,.’file’d..,Aw.if’i\l’o.,2»G:l593/2009
under Articles 226 an’dV:fi.22’7′,ofilthlielilvylconstitution of India
seeking for proceedings in C.C.
No.1300/20037,,.oltl,t’he’ 1″§ijlVei_lof_ the Chief Judicial
Magistra_t,e,_””~§ari’g;;al.oie:,.’ on the basis of FIR
respondent – Police and to
grant reliefs as this Court deems fit
in tlfiéeu facts a’n’d.,circumstances of the case including an
Zlorder itocosts, in the interest ofjustice and equity.
is averred in the petition that the second
,:resip.ondVent ~ Tahsildar, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore,
the basis of the report alleged to have been obtained
it “from his subordinates, has filed a complaint before the
third respondent – Station House Officer, Bidadi Police
\}
-5-
India in LALITHA SHASTRY VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA
(ILR 2008 KAR 4520) and wherefore, the writ
filed for the above said reliefs.
3. Learned single Judge,.’A1aVf_t<§\.A;Afl hleari'i:g the. le–a\r'n,e'ci._VV.
counsel appearing for the~..,l3'etgitioner.'byVf_.oVrd:e'r'"dated'
20.07.2009, held that, is no*"Vdouljt»..truei' that this Court
can exercise its power the Constitution
of India and vqilash however, the
consistent recourse will have to
be hadto._Se~ct'i'o;ri£82-».jof.:the' of Criminal Procedure.
Accordiinglyi Judge has disposed of the _
writ petiti'on*vvhi'l'e liberty to the petitioner to
avai'l4_§the.said Being aggrieved by the said order
learnievd single Judge dated 20.07.2009, the
'peti-ti_onei5"Vl_i_a_s'preferred this appeal.
.. s We have heard the learned counsel appearing
the appellant and the learned Government Advocate
0% appearing for the respondents.
\./’~
-5-
5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submitted that the learned single Judge was not
holding that no ground had been made
the criminal proceedings in as ‘
complaint had been fiied in vioiatioheolf
natural }ustice and the Goire’rnrr1ent” Circ.ui’a.r,””~–i4SiVhich’ has’
been relied upon thi$5….fcf;’ou’rt..gA.in’fiSm.t../§LALITi-iA
SHASTRY’s case. single Judge
ought to have_:”al_iowe’d”the and was not
justified petitioner to have
recourseto ._uiader..iS_ection 48 of the Code of
Criminal Proced’u~re-i,Ag:’i
Learned_WG_overnment Advocate appearing for
argued in support of the order passed by
iti1e”l.«._lea’rne’d._ ‘single Judge and submitted that all the
contention.s””.Vcan be raised by the appellant in the
._..l.31p’V.e,proce.ediVngs under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal
_ Pro ced u re.
\/’2»
-9-
any ground to take a different View in the matter and
accordingly, we hold that the order of the iearr:jetd:.f;fziVrig’ie
Judge is justified and does not cat! for
intra Court appeal. The Appe1lant..1g ;§ax:r;;;i’£3!;ec§” f’5.3.uef ‘
\9~§ Criminal Pets. tion within fouij week; fttroa1’V’to(ia:’3?__.a;;d til}, _.
then, further proceedings in c._c;.:¢o.13o_o/2Voo7 ‘=o’r1,ti2e file
of the C.J._M., Banga1o_re,’a_:e stayed. to _
Accordingly, the Writ Apvpegai is “di_.spo2sed of with the ‘
above said observatione.
1
2 g _,Ch1e£ hstice
.... * Sd/_
g _'
i ndex: Yea/No
iwweb 'Host: Yes/No
surna