Loading...

Smt Mamatha W/O Harinath vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 September, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Smt Mamatha W/O Harinath vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 September, 2009
Author: P.D.Dinakaran(Cj) & V.G.Sabhahit
 

_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

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information