High Court Karnataka High Court

Sri.B.R.Ranganatha S/O Late … vs The Assistant Commissioner on 16 October, 2009

Karnataka High Court
Sri.B.R.Ranganatha S/O Late … vs The Assistant Commissioner on 16 October, 2009
Author: Jawad Rahim
BETWEEN:

1.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE 16" DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009

BEFORE

THE HONBLE MR. JUSTICE JAwAD1R;AHjivRM'7.]  3

CRL.R.P. NO. 361 OF 2069»  '" 

SRI.B.R.RANGANATHA  

S/O LATE SRI.RANGADHAMA=I_AH,_
Age:MAJOR   _ 
PROP, BALAJI THEATRE, N E:s"LAY,O'-UT
MAGADI 'Y= z§q- *4» ~
SRI H R BYAT/-'xPPA;_'S/O' i*_,AT_E"SR_I MEESE
RANGASWAMEAIAH    "  

 '    
Ex~RRE3V1O;ENT Or 9  BAN:<g '
HOTs$?ET,AVr»1AG'x5;:O'1 TOWN  "

SR1*.S'G._ RAME.s~H (3-LJ'RTA 3

5/0 LATE SR1 GOPAL~A_K'RISHNA SHETFY
Age:MA3..OR V ~_  

RR'EsIOENT..v'AsAvI SCHOOL, DR RAJKUMAR RD

._'jL_jr¢1A{,3AD%_I TOWN. ..... 

 'SR'I..4{§A,:Vfv1Vl:=:_.'S-H S/O SRI RAJANNA
"~'.__Ag"€»:.M.AJC.3R

N E S'Li.R\*OOT,

"«MA.<3Am" TOWN

 SRIv--HAGALA;<OTE NARASIMHAMURTHY
_ "Age:MAJOR
 -R/0 MAGADI TOWN

RAMANAGAR DIST



6. SRIKALKEREIDHANANJAYA
Age: MAJOR
R/O MAGADI TOWN
RAMANAGAR£HST

7. SRI BELAGUMBA VIJAYAKUMAR
Age:MAJoR
R/O MAGADI TOWN   
RAMANAGAR DIST 

(BY MR. C.R.GOULAY, A.E)V._,_)
AND:  2

1 THE ASSISTANT CD..é9;jmIs'SIQNETRLIj '=.I
RAMANAGAR SuE--DvISIo'N*    
RANANAGAR. /ifii'V V"K

2 THE Po::L'I(3_AAI)_I  ..... 

 _  %.(B¥{T'ITSERIA".TRA3A SUBRAMANYA BHAT,"I.-ICGP)

RESPONDENT

>l1<*

THIS CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 CR.P.C BY THE

"'- Af3_VO;CATE FOR THE PETITIDNER PRAYING THAT THIS
t+T:o'N'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE
DRDER DATED:11.4.2009 IN CASE NO.MAG/CR/01/2009-10
PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT HEREIN, ASSISTANT

T

COMMISSIONER, RAMANASAR, THEREBY DIRECTING THE
PETITIONERS HEREIN TO EXECUTE A BOND uN..OER
SECTION 107 OF CR.P.C., THE ENTIRE PROCE.EVD~Er.N€3_S
PENDING THEREON. »

THIS RETITION IS COMING ON FOR Aligif/i'I:S:SI(V'qi$iVVT"i'2HITS'T"

DAY THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLO_W.ItN__G:-

ORDER 2
Petitioners' cou nsel abSen't«.j

2. The learnedV:7GIover?whrjr1ent”~ Aiijfleader Sri Raja
Subramanya Bha_t’~a_ppears”for’A — ‘State.

3. sh:OwVS that the petitioners
have qu”es’tiOr1.e5d_V otéicvtion against them by the
Sub-Divisional’ M:ag.Vi’strTa’te°”ander the provisions of Section

107 C_r,P.C.TTrn_:Cas,e- |\3o…ViV3}i\G/CR/01/2009-10. It is alieged

“V”~.thaf,_.Tbyi..”-stheA_initi’et’i’o’i”i’Vof proceedings the respondent has

I.di’reI,cteEJ:ft_he44Vpet’i_tiOners to execute the bond, which is not in

coriformivtyliiwiith the procedural requirement prescribed

TV-‘«4___”~».under”i:.h__e Code of Crimina! Procedure for initiation of such

A Tprwosceedings.

I”?

W

V VK ..

4. If the petitioners are aggrieved of any such

iiiegality in exercise of jurisdiction, the right of reyisi_on_V is

avaiiabie to them before the iearned Sessions__;}udg.e~;’.,!:

doubt, the High Court and District Judge are–co.n:f.,:r’red«witgih

power of revision under Section

is concurrent jurisdiction it its-..necessa’r”y that’ |it_i§gaVnt:’.

exercise right in the Court be|0vv:*..:’

5. Accordingly, dpietitioin r_eji’ec»teti-.’.with liberty to
the petitioners. *_-app]roaych’V.:: Sessions Judge
reg a rd i n g s etch’Vvg-«rife-veinceisf .. .

Sd,/4»
JUDGE