{"id":53259,"date":"2008-04-08T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2008-04-07T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008"},"modified":"2018-09-18T13:46:31","modified_gmt":"2018-09-18T08:16:31","slug":"m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008","title":{"rendered":"M Mallan vs State Of Karnataka By Its … on 8 April, 2008"},"content":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court<\/div>\n
M Mallan vs State Of Karnataka By Its … on 8 April, 2008<\/div>\n
Author: A.S.Bopanna<\/div>\n
IN THE HIGH coum' op KARNATAKA AT   \u00e9 '\n\nDATED THIS THE 3'\"! DAY~oII--.a.PRI]_L     V\n\nBEFORE  _\nTHE HON'BLE MR. .I D$'I*I_QE \ufb02\"S__BO?}I1N!\u00a2.\u00a7\"\"' \n\n% INRIT PET!T!Q!\\_!  (....|.I!\u00a51+'~'IL'!.'!..-!',.'A.'.'.\u00a7'=I\".:}\n. CIW _ . ,'\n\nurn nl:vnImtn1t\"~I;:n ca;-1 1?. in:\\'rEn\"~ than urn n-In-:n\n\nVin run I I nun! n4L._va\u00a2mLf JV.;']'-;i\\lU-E.i..'{~.'>bVI'iV'l'_'Vl'\\..l'l4l'..a'I1'aj\n\n-no um. um; -I':-cg nga. V  ..\n\nBETWEEN :  \n\nMMALLAN    ' '  \ns\/0 LATE--DANDAPms,II_  ._\nAGED ABOUT :sEYEI;RE _  .\nSTONE+.CU'\u00a7'T'ER EERRQFEEEIQII -\nR\/0 I MAIN.\u00abII CROSS} _   \nRAJENDRA~NA('xAR\"-- \" . \nBANGALORE: 'V -\n\n5' \" I   PETITIONER\n\n% ' I (l3jr'D'*\u00a7I-i  DI.h,IAKAl\u00a7.Klf)V.|\n\n  \n\n1 STATE OF' KARNATAKA\nI B'! ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY\n'   HOME as TRANSPORT DEPT\n VIDHANA SOUDHA\nBANGALORE-560 001\n\nDIRECTOR GEHERAL 65 INSPECIDR\n\nGENERAL OF POLICE\nPOLICE HEAD QUARTERS\n\nL\n\nn\nat\n\n\n\nN02. NRUPTHUNGA ROAD\nBANGALORE~560 001\n\n3 commsszonmn or POLICE\n1, INFANTRY ROAD   \nBANGALORE-560 oox U '\n\n5 POLICE INSPECTOR  \nSANJAYNAGAR POLICE emjxon  \"\nBANGALORE-560 U94   U .\n\n6 s KRIS-H_NAMUR'!'H_Y  \nFATHER'S NAME NOTAKNUWN  U V \n\nDue?-c'1'os:  &  ~..E!.~!Er-:.A'.L OF\nPRISON-S, SHESHADRlI.R0Av'D' 2-' '\n\nBa~..ur..=.n:1.-01233.9-i.=6.o%UUU'~vV U    \nRESIDINGUAT'KEBi_COLOElY,4VSAI\u00a7fJAYN;%GAR\n\n3A9zc+.Lo1=:g;=L~5o.924  \n\nP c maumrnwi-3.9..-:.\"22.0  \n\n7 \"v .  \nCI'IXARM'ED.:8ESERVE \"  \nravsa;2:.rsUU4a2o.e. - * \n\nI'_1'l'.1t'll1('\\l\ufb02\"\\.'l1I\\'lf'I\\\u00a3!|\nno KL': FVIIUEJIVID\n\n(By am R.B.;?;A'I}HYa\u00a7NAf\u20acA?wA..NA amen. I-ICGP FOR\n\n..  ma. R3-R'?-\u00abV _ _\n\nUnagsk, KR1SHNAM'UR'l'HY,PARTY-IN-PERSON FOR R-6\n\u00ab . A ;~:.R:  mv. 3-\"ca R-'ii\n\n*   THz\u00e9'UUwErr PE'l'l'Pl0N IS FILED UNDER ARPICLE 226 or\u00bb\n\n C('J\u00a7i$'\u00a7TTfi\"l!\"Ti0N CF' i\ufb01fli\ufb02.  A F'F\u20ac\ufb02'Y'E'R TO; DIRECT'\n'1'!-IE i?,ES.!?0NDEN'PS 1 T0 5 TO REGISTER A CASE OF' MURDER\n\n   ANU 1-mu OVER 'THE in\"v1:s'\ufb01GAT1oN or' 'T'Hi.S CASE TO THE\n\n   CENTRAL BUREAU ow INVESTIGATION\" TO ENSURE FAIR AND\n\n\u00ab mPA:m*mL INVESTIGATION; DIRECT R-l- T0 7 TO PAY\n\n _  'COMPENSATION TO THE DEPENDENTS OF DECEASED\n  MURUGAN we is vrcma or- C-OLD-BLODDED MURDER.\n\nJ\n'3;\n\n\n\nmmmum\nBETWEEN :\n\nAN-JALI W\/0 LATE MURUGAN   \n\nAGED .'-3011'!' 30 YRS\n\nR] O GOVINDASWAMY NAGQR\ncu MIEA In an nan M TALUK\n\nIJIILI I'll IIVI II \\I l\\lI\n\nVILLUPURAM DIST, TAMIL NADU _V V _\nNOW 'PE.\"u\u20acPORARIL'a' R\/O 1'3!' H-AK?'-\u20ac,L  CRGES \n\nRAJENDRANAGAR, BANGALORE \n\nSTKTE..Qi5T..K;i\\Rii\ufb01?l'AK\ufb01.O_' ..  \n\n:32  npnmpuas. GHEEFSECRETARY\nIioivi\ufb01 2%.:-sii.:r TEAKSOPQR? DF=\"'I\".\nVJDHANA E'\u00bb'T.7UDHA .. ~ O\n\n   \n\n{-n\n\n'2 r)iRECTOR GE.NERAL AND\n; INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE\n~  KAR NATAKA s'1'A'1':s'.\nPOLICE HEAD QUARTERS\n _ N012, NRUPATHUNGA Row\n'--B_ANCiALQRE 1\n\n3. V H SMJGLMNA\n AGED \ufb01BOU'I' 56 YRS\n.F'ATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN\nCOMMISSIONER OF POLICE\n\nAA ._ BANGALORE CITY\n\n-_  NO. 1. INFANPRY ROAD\n' BANGALORE1\nI\n\n\n\n4 POLICE INSPECTOR\n\n%:\":}u'J:-'xY:'u'A%R PGLECE \"\"\"\"'\"\"!'!\n\nBANGALORE 94   %\n5 s KRIS!-INAMURTHY\n\naaim asom' 56 ':'RS _\nFATHER'S NAME NOT Known .,\naiaacm. UR GE:'v'ERAL 9.1.-49* %z.-.'s..-99....-'*'*-*r.\\::=: A A\n\nGENERAL or masons, SHEEHAIJRI ROAD  \nR\/O K.E.B. COLOP$Y;'~SANJAY\u00a7\u00a5\u00a3\u20ac2\u00a7Al\u00a7\"-\u00ab.  'A\n\nI-It-an .'n_n..4\n\nANGA Ru;-oouua-1 -\n\n6 POLiCE  'Fi.'RiJVa'::\"sE\u00bb1.'Ax\"3vf'_E'-'i'L\u00a7.1.\"Vs..T'.:\nMAJOR. :FAT.H'.ER'S:_NA_ME: Nomraowta %\ncm    \nMYSGRE\u00bbR0hi3_V__    '\nBANGALQRE. '  H \" '\n %%%%  %  . _ %  RESPONDENT8\n(By sRf.R.B.8ATEiYFxh:lAI%Ai'\u00a7liA amen. HCGP FOR\nR-1&2: --  \nDR.s.\"5RR3HNAMURrH?,, PAR'1'Y-IN-PERSON ma R-5\nSR1 C.H.\" .HAnu1s1An*rH:;RAYA. ADV. FOR R-6)\n\nV.  \u00abmisVV'wRrr PETITVH %%%%%  1oN rs FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 on\n\n '   OF INDIA. WITH A PRAYER T0; DIRECT. R1\n'  TD. R4 REGISTER A CASE OF' MURDER AND  THE\n\nINV'E31'I(%\ufb01_'9I0~N'OF THIS CASE TO THE CENTRAL BUREAU or\n1N.\\(Es'1'ICi.A'i':oN To ENSURE - FAIR AND IMPARPIAL\n1NVE8'I'iGA'!'iON; DIRECT R3 T0 R6 To PAY COMPENSATION -OF\nRUPEESFIVE LAKE-IS To THE PE'I'!'I'l0NER FOR nammme HER\n\n V' H-USBARD av camno Hm A mcorr. RUBBER, cnmuw.\n~  DERECYI' 121  To my 'COMPE.N_8A'HON ow RUPEE8\n'r-4:135:17 FIVE uxas To me PE'f'I'I'ION'ER FOR THE manna\n\nOF  !~!U!3B.A!9lD\n\nI\n\nL\n\n1.\n\n\n\nThese Writ Petitions having been reserved   \ncoming on for pronouncement this day. the Court p:1::J1ounc--eE...iiie_T V.\n\nfollowing:\n\n2. In   Sri M.Ma1lan\ncln:ims___    petitioner in\nw.p.Ne.d67i}2en2e %'Ldd  claims to be the wife of\ndeceased  in the said incident which\n on   In the \ufb01n: petition, the petitioner\n\nIiI'\u00abt'Q\\I'I:In~'\n\n '  to   \" acaae\" ' of:r1inu'\"\"'er am ' \" 'nan' \" 'ti-ove1\"\"\"'\n\n insdestigtition of the case to  Bureau of\n\n Inveeiigaaiion ('CBl' for short) to ensure fair and \n\n  The petitioner has aleo qought In mandamus to\n\n the respondents to pay compensation to the\n\nI\n15\n\n\n\n% '1'=PW;'+'-\"'3 %\u00b01\"% dmwd MI-rus\ufb01n 1;Wl39  j\n\npetitioner' is a victim ofoold blooded*mmd_er. raj-L\u00a7hg%\u00a7j     j \n\npetiiion.%t1z.e pe\ufb01\ufb02oner seek\u00bb for \n\n._ %mgi_a_\u00bbtg:r__a case--of    _\n\nQ: gang: in OBI.    \" L'\n\na1.':\u00ab_'_Ip_I.|! 51: wg\ufb01wv\n\n%'thc'mInt1er___01\" 1:;  [2\n\n__%fuu __.'\n\nfor defgxiiirg\ufb01 her hii'\ufb01ii'1\u20ac'i i'u:3r'~%s;wu:ng\"'a\"'ufsi' 3  \n\n etc.   mugigt for\n\n    to   \nare ~that on thc u:gm.%%.;g%2:a\";a:.\u00bb.2oo;.   sam-\n\n- to   to ?h1\u00a7nk  the kitchen door of the\n\n\u00ab  \"'-=4---%%--\u00a7  In  '\u00a34:-.r=e .  \n\n'~._...;-.'!-..'..y._  4.1:: i \ufb01at I1'-I:s-..mu-|I'alri1I|1I- an Dixauhnn,  annal-\n\\ava.w.mn\u00a7 unw-\n\n'V-I211\n\n II'?-Ila ll-I-I-II? \"FIJI-R'-I-II CID I-IIIIZWIILIJ\n\n___ inapq_ciI;r'  of Prisons.\" \"i\"'nc  ai KEB\n\n  Bangalore. -- One  P.G.Purushotha_m\n\n   other mapond'cnt,_%a  \n\n%   %[C'vns*ahh who was P\u00b0_','\u00b0d' an 8  the -aid\n\n1\ni\n\nI\nIn\n\n\n\nDr.S.Knshnam' urthy on havm' g heard the noiseof,  \n\npersona attempting to break open the   \n\nthe basement of the house attempted   ._\n\nthat the door to the    \" V L'\n\nnu---,-.v.\n\nad. 1; Liek E heen__    out and\n\n......;...... u... .....:.1 4.1...- ....;...,..'.......- .. 4 ;,-*.z.. :.__1- _.,.__ 4.1.-\n\ndoor with a houraer amine'          't mm' 'as 'them,\n\nthe said     to attack\n\nSri Puruv     is said to have \ufb01red a o\n\nshot    which hit one of the persons.\nThe othentivo  the person who was hit by the\nbul1:;t.Vtr\u00a7v__i_og\"'m'V'cli.i'nb over the wall, in ml to have\n\n.   V.   of the wall, who was later identi\ufb01ed'\n\n- 'I1I;T_. -n-cu.\n\n'9\n\n  ten \":3 V' tantra  tell} nnnrn\ufb02ina in H11-_ uni-i\ufb01nnln-It Inn was\n\n............-......:I .......1I\n\n.1' .._....I -....L:~.\u00a2L........... ..........., a.I..... ..... 1.l............_... ..\n\n  to M.s.\ufb01amaiah Hoapitalanci  hewas\n\n the poatlnortem was conducted on 24.12.2001.\n\no  ,.._h1'V\"'.'.13uhaequently the petitioner was called on 25.12.2001 and\n\nthebodywashandcdover. Thchzciientisaaidtohawbeen\n\nJ\n)2\n\n'I\n\n\n\nreported in the newspapers. The issue had  reieezi i T; 7  '\nthe learned counsel lbr the  i-hing'  \nDirector General of Police and   \"  \n\npetitioner is said to  ti  on * L'\n\nI J-(IQ!-I can u.--. crown---\n\n.onr.11 in the M' im.e;~  in\n\n1:1__'l\u00a3'I_ _ __'I .1.\" ...... ....\n\nnxcnnuou on Gov i* \"\"Vp\"\"i\"\"' =i\"\"\" 33\"\" \"' \"\"\"'\n\nhaw.\niikciy to come oi.\u00a7t--\u00a7.f theease fife  the city Folios\nsince Sri.   of Pohee at that\npoint   urthy and 1.. 1....\n  that it was a case of\npxivate   was a daooit and the\npxeeent    Police as 000 is in friendly terms\n\n It is in this background, the\n\n\" em--e-  sue-a.. the n e n: me' e senezein r__he\n\n   Murugan has su\ufb01lud\" ' injua\ufb01oe and proper\n_  should be made and appropriate -compensation\n be given to Murugan'.-s wife Smt. Anjali. in the\n\npetition. legal ooninntions with regarcl to private defence\n\nI\n43\n\n\n\navmlab' le under the Indian Penal code and the  '\n\nsame is also stated. The manner inwhich  K '\n\noccumed is disputed. The pc\ufb01\ufb01oh':.hy:.'_Si*iV \n\n\ufb01led on 3.2.2002. 'rheied&cr'i1_ie..%(pciiiiex\u00a7 by   *\n\nfiled on 18.2.2002.\n\n're 13.: I-I.iI\\.4    In-ow!-I, I=I~I-I-Insulin:\n\n'L ;__._   3:- -1-.. _4.._a...._1 A.'I_._J.\n l\".l.\u00a3.'l.nE'.T 1%. 13 E1180 3 ID\". Inlll\ufb02l.\n\ns'*'\"* Tits  1 _ 2\n\nher    had \nher huisiidiid * in his hoiise while he\nwas    and he did not pay his wages\nand that hd'  ..i......a2 at him when he had sought roi-\n\n    \" wage \"  .9. With iegaid to the incident, it is\n\n   itamc to Bangalore and went to Same' ynagar\n\n     The  \n\nU] wG'i'i'.IiI\".\u00a2u\\J\\uL\u00a2'iCi='i%\"'\"\"':\" \n\nE.\n\n  her to  if she did not itecp quiet. Smt. imjaii aiao\n\n  daontends that she went to the house undcr construction\n\n'next to Dr.K1:iahnamurthy's house and met the pardons\n\n3' %*\"\"\"'\n\n\n\nFF\n\n5  \n\nworking in that house. They told her that  u\nMumgan and 15 others were doing    \nthat house. They also told her  \ngoing to her native village other   dues\n\n a_nc1   t' V\n\nnnn I'-I-and-I!-(\\-Iv  r\ufb01annr \"'6\n\nw.............. 1....  eeiam.\n  has     petition.\n\n5. The   its objection\nstatement_1ie'~   that the my Writ\nPk:-.titioia_ is  or this Court. It is contended\nthat thetpeieiiioh   similar he the tatement of\nthe ef   inferences an appeared in the\n\nthin nil. '1-inn in\n1 W PM'. W\n\nme...\n\nis\n\n., - 41....\" '.~ ..,~:......-|.~.... -...... ..\ntn' vie';  ' 'Liv If\n\n4.1.... ___.-:.... _.,:_.1..4.. 1.--; :4. :... .__.\nH10; uuacugnuu. uI.II.1I.l\ufb02Il.l.l\n\neoeenpiee the Police Clf\ufb01ocra and hiierieiing with\n\n and prosecution. It is contended that\nM fttihe heiitioo is also not maintainahle sinoe the investigation\n __'  an  \"\"n-- mini';-a-win':-u.nn-u chug-nI-- 'tn.\n\n1; no \"In-n\n CID  I IIIG  I-I-Ii\ufb01 II' ILIG\n\npetitioner that  Puruahotham Ran was not a gunman, but\n\n ldcwtiistdtoook and did not know how to handle the sun are\n\n With regard tothe allegation that deceased \n\nhouse of the neighbour of the respondent Sri Nanjappa and\n\n1\nla\n\n\n\nthat 11:: had also made him work is denied and    \n\nis stated that the mud' ' ent hook   'V\n\nconstruction of the house in   \n\nKrishnamuxthy and which  to  \" T'\n\nby t_h.t.: e.1n_d gf Dar._=c_I.II._h:.r   !'=\"'*J.m..='\n\n  ' ._.\"'..'-._1V\"v~ .1.-- .1 1.... _.._.\nw.u...u.....m. uas '\ufb01r. -'Fm-r;~:: u 112;. - tun uuiri\n\ndain.   statement has\nalso    to state that\n constructing his\nhouscllz  the house of the neighbour Sri\n   -of that house \"had stopped\nby  and git' and the said sai Nanjappa had\n\n a    \n\nI1:-I5-Inn; mm. nlan\n\n aa.'.a_  a  ' :10 a snngnyyu uuau % }u-'a.u.u.n.n\u00a2u_[ nan cu-nun:\n\n1'*x:*-.33 ; aim ul\ufb01fi\ufb01 in unis uuuusm, uu: uuim \ufb01iit f\ufb01\ufb01ii 'I3? \ufb01e\n\n pe\ufb01tiangi\u00bb has been denied. with regard to the allegations\n\n Sri Puruahotham Rao was only a cook etc,\n\n'    states that Sri Purushotham Rao was\n\nmcruitnd as a constable on 22.2.1996 and the demila with\n\n1\n33\n\n\n\nsame manner as contended in \n\non behalf of the coveinmen\u00e9.eick_T1i\u00a2'eii\u00a2iaiia  ff,\n\npistol iasued by the  the may *   mined\nin that xegaxd is  to--'_$:'ni- ft\u00bb,  that an\nPurushctham Rap was     of the\n\nn\n-. .-- _......_'..__\n\nPistol. !* in  iiiam '  ii of t.h.e cnmtnr\n\n_...........1 ...r 2\nI\n\nin iiieedpiisoiidd'    and security\nsuapecf as such three gunmen were\n   General of Prisons and\n\n V'  _    continued for his protection. Dr. S.\n\n   states that an ex--police O\ufb02icer of\n\n open pnesa through the media inclusive of\n\n  and television stated that a letter was also\n\n\n\nE\nlb\n\n..-e-------\n\ng-mm\"! and was taamhew to hart:-'Ea fie _a_rr:ii.\n\n \n\nft. is \"t this tinge the  Ex-Foiioe -G\ufb01ieer went to \n\nand made a statement pmettcally' \" retracting   '\n\nthat Sri Purushotham Rao was a cook,   of' 'A V'\n\nthe situation by asserting that Sxi   \n\nbeen properly appointed   dnot  t'\n\naccording to the rules. This  the  o\ufb02ioer\nis to none other than he  \nDr.S,K.1is.?1.n_a.m_I.11t_.hy f-.:.Ijt!:.ef  net mm or\n3.-assess    he  shot\n     place, he\n  oontml Room and to\nthe nor-t,\u00ab t the Police-came to the spot,\nthey Atfoundt\u00e9ttthev A   whioh had been used in an\n\n   the kitchen door. The fuse of the\n\n . been tampered with. Immediately Sri\n\n \ufb02ee informed that he  the heeeeh erhe .1-e\u00abi..\n\n\" \u00a7_h9t  urn-I gig em... :..........a:..a._:.. ............e...: The\n\n ?\n\nnun a a nun: Iuuuuusnlusy u::uI.uuI_=u.\n'I...\n\n_'I____\n\n c--r\"\"\"'~\"\" \"pen 'f the uoor was not suoeessfui because of Sri\n\n2%\n\n1\nJ?\n1.\n\n\n\nPuruahotham Ran': alertness and timely   jieomee\nof the neighbours who had come out on hearing   H\n\nnoise are alao mentioned in the objeot_io1_I  ,!t   l \n\nw-u-an-nor --mu-unrup I-I-II-J I-laid LIIJI-I\n\nSr';  . ':\"hexT: was   mom-1y'w&he;m\"\"a \n\niimse mber gang had made  only\nfew days earlier. They mm  of lime\nby an air ri\ufb02e. Dr. S. e\ufb01litce with regard\nto the pIO0Odll\ufb01fLt.1 i.at   \ufb01_|,ga1d)n' 3 the\nIllasiaterial  or C.lr.P.C. The piaml\nused Vhzv\"-e  \"R:*.o\"\u00a7 was taken over by\n  ;\u00bb;._:1am_a_~.  \n\nlmlkt -.-.'h\u00a7.\u00a2h.4 l~.e=.:'. hit  was also f  air} 'the\n\n   Ran. The details ofthe ballistic report is\n l 'V tat\ufb015oi..1:g:on':t\"hc body ofthe victim mad as such the shotwue\n  V l elm: \ufb01oint blank range. Two sniffer' dogs were pleased V\n    The first sni\ufb01er dog was made I to smell the J!\n\nJ:\n\na\nII\n\n\n\n\\-\n\nboulder and it jumped aemua the wall', went' to \n\nwhen-. Murugan was found dead and than  \n\nFa\nIO\n\nv------pu--- ---u--nu\n\nu\nI\n\n..\u00a2 ___..4. m1._ ____.._1 4-- ...1.:_I_ :-_.._._\" '..1..;--a.,-I\nI. ElL'\u00abC.l.I.l... ILID \ufb02.'nUl.lll I103 WIIIJII   nan\n\nlater was macie to ameii fuse   \n\nto the place when:    went\nalong the same trail up  con\ufb01rms that\nthe boulder wags    mmnved by\n\n   The\n\ndglpiin \"Q.   iii? \"in _ ' lg!-III: n _ . nun  \u00a5'l'h'h\n\n____-__ 1.-.: _____.___u.;_._~a A_'I__ __s._1\n\n\"E Illlllll\ufb02ll\ufb02il\ufb02lllllll\ufb02litlill\ufb02llll\n\n Lg- _l_;a'__.;. __\npcnunnlng igla-uulieu .\n\nI    by the Ieaponcient;  regard to\n  _ made by the learned eounlel for the\n%p\u00a2ti::aon\u00a2\u00a3A\"t:;a:}a%:aar enqlxhy would not be made, it is stated\n\n  incluuge of the GOD is a very senior and\n\n  Ol\ufb02oer who h even ' senior In\n   and Sri H The quali\ufb01cations\n\nE\n\nistnn . _f . lung until :_ yanks-I      ' \n\n  \n\n\n\n7. In the additional ninteme\ufb01tief By \ufb01e\ufb01\n\nmandamus is not  'the-re beimig demand\n\nof  No.:i65g.ri;1 ~ .353 3-_:-J. with\n\n.%~\u00absiioma**-kijimeiei%[iiiieai\u00a7 \u00a7i%'kia cane inniitutieti 'by\nDr.K1-1\" \ufb01ne'-m. mm .'   learned counsel for the\npetitioner fbz' \"is akin indicated. Refening to\n\n   in the Writ Petition \ufb01nther details\n\n  the petition and the emappeara to be\n\n ea\ufb02ier statement of objections. Further\n\n',.\u00bbthe44uave!:n~...e1itahaveheen1efened Inh1mde:rIn1nd1oa' ' to'\n\nV'  i_It_t_:;rn_:_I1L1st_e1I_t::1_nn 9! @ ;*_-=-.fnm._...-gt: '''-'..._......I-''-'- 'W %>\n\n-  -Iifl-5!!-Srurnnu-n u'Ina\\-- I-'In... food-I.'-.\n\nIt II-rJ'\n\num. um-'-mu\"iiu\"i-a i\"u*i'r-en' iii the\n\n:3\n\n\n\nadditional objections stntcmcnt am in the   \n\nform, the entire details need not (go.  '     L\"\n\n8, l__ at.\u00bb Q gen t_ht_r   9. \"\n\nm---...moo      'cm-era\n it 'at denied by  as an moi: in\nthe house or   in the\npetition mot 3:.q;.o;: :oho\u00a3'j_;_y\u00a7h\u00a7oh.__o-- in the death of\nMmuggn  in also denied. The\nQaid  he is a gunman eve:-since\n\n  _ 'Pieto1' had been given to him by the\n\n2:\ni\nE\n\n.....A.I.-.. .........I 'I..-\nPlull\ufb02it Ml\":-lM uI'Ul illlll '[115\n\ncm.'  ejg\ufb01nn\ufb01s warranted the opcnm' g of file file. He\n\n that he had already made the umtcw ants in\n\n tn the said cirmmnatnnoe bcfom the sub-divisional\n\n  _'V_!\u00a7\u00a7iagia!1atc and before the Sanjaynagar Police and also before\n\nthe COD.\n\n:\\,\".-.\n\n\n\n9. On behalf of the petitioner, rejoinder -has \n\n\ufb01led.\n\n10. On these rival oomcn!:3aI:s,'l  ll\n\nDr.Kriahnamurthy. the     Sri \n\nSathyanarayana Singh,;__   and\n\nthe Inn-I-nut} %II'I'|\ufb02Dl far\n\nI65'!\n\n11.   are in eiabomtion\nof the   coninntion would be\n   inetead of speci\ufb01c\nme\ufb01exenee  mfcrmd to by the learned\n 'V  \"person whichever relevant would\n\n ll   to  analysm g.\n\n12?... 3-.V *'.....n '-........-=-.':m'......**'--' of *...e ri-J.-.1 wr.\"--..e..&:-.=\n\n 41.. '___ W\ufb011_.!.. _..'  I'. _L LI. _i ail}. . I _ ..1 .n.._I _ __\n\n past midnight of 23.12.2001 and early hours of-\n\n?'  24.12.2001 in the house of Dr.K:mhnam' army in not in\n\nI\n\nL\n\n\n\n .  \"w  lilan nrII'I1|\"T_..- \".1.\n\n\" ._ ntmdu\ufb01gl\n\ndispute. The question raised by both the sides\n\nwith regard to the allegations made by the   \n\nfirst instance alleging that  kk\n\nshot at deceased Murugtm from  \n\n     of\n\n{kg 1 \" . n (I;-inn\nluv III-\ufb01I\ufb02.l-I!-I-I-I-I5 nnsuu -I_,VH!l- we 5:: {I II'!-2)?!' wsnnun nan;\n\nC)\n\nsecond  on    \nis an em wheresgi   shot deceased\nMurugan,    handle pistol and\nin any a uituat-.ion\u00ab cannot\n\nbe ju\u00a7\ufb01'j\ufb01egl~  came not oatia\ufb01r any one -of the\n\n  102, 103 and 105 of Indian \"Penal w\n\n._.___  tJI.;s_m: the\n\n.1\n--_..._-- --...-_ .._ ...... .. .-....-... .. .._...._- I...............\n\n' ..=.-.'&e-...L..  _ nnuuavunnru 'inn 'In.-I-I nlllnl-inn-I Ian\n\n is oontraly in pmoeciume and in fact S1'-i\n\n Po 31-uL  Rae was only a cook -who was wo\ufb02cmg' for\n\nl?'\u00bbr.I\u00a7riahna:nurthy. On behalf of the respondent, not only\n\n'   posting ofSn' Purushotham Run as gunman has been\n\n)2\n\n3\n'-\n\n\n\n0\n\n-.-.'1*.e:.~e-.-m-.z'.cr Sn Pia:-.:sha'a\"1m*u R\" was \ufb01\ufb01\ufb01i '  ' .\n\n\ufb01re is also     'V\n\nDr.Kr.iahnamurthy owing certain  \n\nto certain mason work alleged'   \n\nnot only been denied by Dr.Kna!mam 1'    \u00a31} derailed\nexplanation has been    the  ' ' of\nsuch a claim.   have been\nangued at   sum; (.3;-1I_.t-t\n\n__..._.:_V_. _.__.1 '1 Lu'; ' ._ .4:\n\n.  manna'  t he ioat sight of. -Every\ncietnii  t\u00a7ingVto   '  Having occuned. the manner in\n\nWh'\u00b0hh the '@1',_' 'f ohaasoobeen '  lined and as to whether Sri\n\n L'  iota in detail in a writ  as ifaaaeaaing\n\n gag, trial. All that zequzim to he noticed' in this\n\n peti;ionV i1_I  Iegaml to the ymeedure followed, with regani\n\n \u00bb1'g'm_ 11;- -_tI_',_mLit_r:I_ g.-1.1.-.1.-.\u00ab.~.t.-e.a-.1 by 4.1;. pn...L --4.... -*..1.'-.a-.-=m...........--'-''----''\n\n..\n<\/pre>\n
3′<\/p>\n
“I’1.”‘l    IIQIID  -I-Ian, I-I-Inn—-n|-Iv angst Again: Ii}<\/p>\n
1 1.:|luI.- uuvu unuuniu IIIU IISHCEIIL UB1?’ lllll’<\/p>\n
the extent ofanalyaing the contentions put lbrth  <\/p>\n
_….I_.._.__I IrnI_.:g._1,A ‘<\/p>\n
9. *…..'”-.. 3’13.-e&e %:….”-” R dam m   .<\/p>\n
Gu”.|i’_y’ E an cu-‘ujii\ufb01 by the GB} is ‘melon.  ‘v V<\/p>\n
this aspect of the matter, the    <\/p>\n
this Court while considering  cf   in<\/p>\n
the petition under   “iof mm 1
\nalso mquima he he    in math<\/p>\n
E
\nE
\nE
\n‘5\n<\/p>\n
2..\n<\/p>\n
 to     counsel for the pehlianer”<\/p>\n
 ,_on   thiist:g!:a..\u00abthe contentions urged in the petition<\/p>\n
   the news items which have appeared in <\/p>\n
  folkzwing the incident. -A perusal of<\/p>\n
 the  which’ have been prod. need both. by the<\/p>\n
A i ‘  as well as Dnliriahnamurthy would -indicate’ that<\/p>\n
—   xetamg t9 the ei_r:\u00a2.-1-‘.-i__-I-.r;.e in -I .=..!.-=.:.;*er’.. *..-.-h. t!-__..-2<\/p>\n
L<\/p>\n
‘I.\n<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the petitioner’ himself  gin  ‘<\/p>\n
stage itself the learned counsel forvthe  in<\/p>\n
certain’ issues with regard to the   <\/p>\n
on 27.12.2001 by the   to <\/p>\n
the Hog Mihister    details<\/p>\n
‘U
\nJenna;-s  _  u-_p<\/p>\n
wntaizie\ufb01 in the said ””11—‘*—“‘ *-n*’..’%m””–.’.’-:==.-1 “!.-….a Let several.<\/p>\n
issues have    thoti\ufb01\n\nthan    The learned counsel\n<\/pre>\n
would   instructions. I do not wish to
\nadvert   the g same since any such<\/p>\n
observation  either of the parties in the other<\/p>\n
  amongstvthemselves. However, with regard to the<\/p>\n
. 5′;\n<\/p>\n
 ”  on. hehaslf of the  that the<\/p>\n
doaease-i~ -asst shat d% by  …..i-Heel!’ at<\/p>\n
 point range when the deceased appmacheti  for<\/p>\n
 of the outstanding wages, the same is not<\/p>\n
i’  s\u00e9ubstsn\ufb01ated except for the bald allegations made in the<\/p>\n
petition stating that certain other persons who were<\/p>\n
II’ B–II—-\n<\/p>\n
SInt.Anjah’ that Murugan had tnld them that   e &  <\/p>\n
her village after collecting <\/p>\n
1″,
\ncard. e I as’:\n<\/p>\n
H\ufb01nhnnvnirrfhu, “I”‘I’u-, n\ufb02unv   id’. .  ~_<\/p>\n
1.-.: \u00a2’;’.~.n_-n \u00a2V’.:l_…a,V.  ‘VA.’I.__4. V
\namp  _ nuun llllll.\n<\/p>\n
deceased: :’v1iu”iii’a”‘u man -5151<\/p>\n
     in
\nthe next house and had  ;e\u00a7s9n’s work in his
\nhouse and   had  fm. the “me
\nthough he  before his house.
\nIt is re.   to explain that
\n   wages. Despite the fact that
\n  forth by Dr..S.K1-.iahna.I.nuI’th_I,r<\/p>\n
 en’ kin hnllnn I-nut!  nnvlnn-Ilni-J11 an<\/p>\n
I1’nr:u’I’\u00a7I’I\\nr In ‘ _
\n ‘1.-u.I.u’.II.| ‘ll-\ufb01lial sis new uvuwu<\/p>\n
   in  1998 and that the eonsizruction week of<\/p>\n
 building belonging to Sri Nanjappn had<\/p>\n
been   October 2000 and deceased Murugsn had<\/p>\n
   ne-t_.bee’n engaged by Sri Nanjappa for consimctima work, no<\/p>\n
   has been placed on behalfof the petitioner nor any<\/p>\n
0%    person ha stated that deceased Murugan had” worked<\/p>\n
3’ :’_3———–.\n<\/p>\n
  payment of his wages am:\n<\/p>\n
either for Dr\ufb01riahnamurthy or Sri    K <\/p>\n
n_u_–_t_-M gmnotiatgtt otatement. tiattugh it its  <\/p>\n
about 15 other lam”-..ze:e.’e we ‘.-.I’r.2z4*1.r._’i_.z.’-‘gV_ tlzae,<\/p>\n
aiaiement is maria by 5
\nhefbm  Court. on =t:ttt= other the   by
\nSri Nanjappa to the   not worked
\nwould lend    put forth by
\n  pemon can
\n ta’ would approach the
\nother for  during midnight and that
\ntoo whet gm  a_I.l_1Q!Lnt  gunmen; for __a<\/p>\n
“”‘g{  ‘!’ht-=5:-;;%m.V the thwry of the dw………-‘–*–‘ ….’*-=-‘.’i”..g<\/p>\n
1<\/span><\/p>\n
   __ ‘uh y havJn’ 1; shot him at that tune’ cannot be<\/p>\n
 in  event.\n<\/p>\n
A    14. with regard to the allegation that so Puruahotham<\/p>\n
% ‘V I-i\u00a7ao was working a a cook and he was not entitled to handle<\/p>\n
weapons is without’ basis whatsoever since the teoomds<\/p>\n
“\ufb01’1nH’1n<\/p>\n
‘~’m’*e’ pre:\u00ab\u00bbm.’\u00b0=,t wn\u00e9n<\/p>\n
submitted clearly indicate his appomunent,  <\/p>\n
imparted, a gun being issued. The Tnontg kk<\/p>\n
been posted as a gunman to  <\/p>\n
tine p:Iooec_l1n\\:: L n_t a ,ua.tLe_i’  go_ e  is ”<\/p>\n
any %vent the tact’ ‘  cannot be
\ndisputed and  .du\ufb01fe’a’a\u00e91′;to’-  in a particular<\/p>\n
situation     er in which’ he<\/p>\n
has   looked into by the a<\/p>\n
Police  eanducma by the jurisdictional
\npolice   an  as such if any of the \ufb01nding<\/p>\n
 awe  itv’:ia to be questioned in an appropriate<\/p>\n
av… ‘nun-ugl<\/p>\n
 of p-.’.~.-\ufb01…z-.g of 9″‘ =*’—l’=e”—m<\/p>\n
J-..~.. .’.. …..1-.. I..- ____. :_ _I__ __ _. .9 1…-__
\n.mi’\u20acsu _y’uTru::e|u.7.|.Iu1’I’.m=-“‘ ‘=<\/p>\n
  itzaeif, he was the pension who waapreaent<\/p>\n
 iiarii the weapon and not Dr- Kxiahnaanurthy. as<\/p>\n
 Further. if after considering the case put forth by<\/p>\n
.    petitioner, ifthia Court is satis\ufb01ed that the matter calls<\/p>\n
for any further enquiries, these are matters which would<\/p>\n
3<\/span><\/p>\n
 ee-nt.eer_I +._._r–_t LI-…. mm-A-we see at<\/p>\n
have to be considered therein and therefore, a   <\/p>\n
\ufb01act cannot be rendered merely   <\/p>\n
made in the form of oath againt    <\/p>\n
wteieh mum I.ae\u00ab.:e ta be  e;;he,ee-et;;, :.2-en….;_.ie  h<\/p>\n
an I ’41” ‘ I-A
\nHUB-C.|H51\\u.a 33 in<\/p>\n
Si’<\/p>\n
‘ I<\/p>\n
II-ll<\/p>\n
 -e I… D -\u00bb -.l.il!\u00a5I-ll.\n<\/p>\n
petitioner, no doubt,  ifmnataita
\nManual Vol.1 whexein    standing
\nguards    Vthesmhlhnum smengttv
\nof the    and four cozntnhlcs.
\nIn so  as    is stated in clause 729 that
\nguards tn.  may be pnwidecl with the
\n of   The learned counsel ‘would
\n A A 9. g-mm-.:.-I-. in<\/p>\n
la-nu veIv1|-‘IwIuuI-II- w–v-rs unnunennn In.-<\/p>\n
:2
\nI.\n<\/p>\n
?\n<\/p>\n
AL _J.\n<\/p>\n
 n,e..ar.:n i..’L…’:V;-.\u00abs…”…  .. ~ 1…… ….. 1.-…. _
\n‘u:..u-.An:.’.vA  nu t uuuu xuutnvuu. Inc ‘t ulul.<\/p>\n
  could be posted on or-tiers of the governm ent<\/p>\n
  disputed. In the instant case. the government<\/p>\n
Vine: disputed the iiact of gunman being allotted to<\/p>\n
. __lI3r.S.K1iahnam.unthy. In fact the details of the tmmm’ .’ g<\/p>\n
undergone by Sri Purushotham Ran at GAR Head quarters<\/p>\n
iz<\/p>\n
and that he had been assigned work an n  <\/p>\n
L.Revanaa1d- ‘ da1ah’ and later  . 411:: k   V<\/p>\n
Sri Puruehotham Ran    *<\/p>\n
been stated by the    that-<\/p>\n
\n\na\ufb01er retirement of Sri  _    Ruo\n\n   \n\na.sm--.-gab     .......m as\n<\/pre>\n
details?   allotted to senior Police
\ngem’   are available in the<\/p>\n
:i11v”‘\u00a7’1’l\u00a3i-*?lio~;x’j”   tiibbaadiuon to the latcment of the<\/p>\n
G5,’ v-gm’ :wgr1t;e’~”a1i’\u00a7JAsIiyap1-alca “””  ah Nayak. Deputy Come” ‘ er<\/p>\n
  df   Reserve I-LQ. hm \ufb01led an a\ufb02idavit<\/p>\n
‘ “5′”””.'”!5 “”””\n<\/p>\n
  clarifying the method and manner of<\/p>\n
  i-LQ. “i”‘ne said Gi\ufb01eer   to   in<\/p>\n
iqaave been made by Sri Bagbel, IFS who was working as DCP.<\/p>\n
WThesaidO\ufb02’iee1’haaalaoswomhothema:nnerofpostingSIi<\/p>\n
I
\nJ;\n<\/p>\n
’11<\/p>\n
Purushotham Rao, Sri Ravi and Sri Sumah  ‘<\/p>\n
that the; learned counsel tbr the pcii\ufb01oimr     K 2<\/p>\n
at that time was also aware of  <\/p>\n
has also ataind about   <\/p>\n
-van -*”-‘ ‘ – “”*’-“‘***”‘~   in-‘ *’*-In th.-.-.0
\n\u00abmun\u00bb  aw    mm or am
\nGeneral__o_i’ V ber2001. ltiaalso
\n assigned In all the miniatem
\nand   since 31.7.1999 the Hon’ble<\/p>\n
 of  High Court wen: al given the<\/p>\n
  V .. ….. .. and that _ Ont is<\/p>\n
J. a_- _..- -…”.;..f___\u00a2 .._..a 41…… ……. ……. ‘ ..
\nIllily aaui\ufb01umuut mm uusy an: pauuuwu vvuu an unuum<\/p>\n
E.\n<\/p>\n
:.\n<\/p>\n
3.
\nI’
\nE
\n?\n<\/p>\n
5:\n<\/p>\n
HI<\/p>\n
 piatoi’ along with necessary mnmuniiions. “i”‘neae stats<\/p>\n
  e to indicate that the allotment of gunmen are made<\/p>\n
  communication and the instant case i not an isolated<\/p>\n
case. The communication datnd 30.4.2001 stating that the<\/p>\n
#1’:–I-uh<\/p>\n
Ii<\/p>\n
gunmen are aaaipied to Dr.Krishnamu11:hy ii   ‘:7  V’
\nmama. Theiefome, in my view;””theA
\nPuruahotham Rao 3 a gunman of  ._<\/p>\n
be said to he unauthoxised.<\/p>\n
15. In $13  {the ‘i”‘”~”‘””‘ :’.–“-“‘- cf “‘-<\/p>\n
incident which  _’  Z
\nnoticed. _     ggagiondenm is that
\n  had gone out to a
\nmovie  had thereafter ietired for
\nthe dayi  was in the basement and is<\/p>\n
 to    noise near the kitchen door and<\/p>\n
.     “” come ”  out, a stick had been. inserted’ to<\/p>\n
 the  ‘.”.;.jm:.’.~~s.-I.1*…!:I.’IriL..I..-.- and 9..\ufb01.2.’-r pulling the dI’_|\u00a3.Il’ and<\/p>\n
Union<\/p>\n
a “2 ‘V – o a
\nhi*e\u00a2;ismg~  Su\ufb01 stiris: I’.’:u”i”‘u’ ‘mt an iic’a”uuuuu’.””‘ that ‘ck-tee<\/p>\n
 petaoixvsiwem attempting to tweak open the kitchen door with
\n  boulder. On noticing Sn’ Purushotham Ran, the said<\/p>\n
  jaemona am said to have attempted to attack him with the<\/p>\n
boulder and as such in defence and to prevent the mime, he<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
}><\/p>\n
‘n.\n<\/p>\n
opened \ufb01n-. from his aewiee pistol which  *<\/p>\n
persons who later was <\/p>\n
therea\ufb01er attempting he run      <\/p>\n
e\ufb01rrze ‘iit\ufb01li\ufb02 save’.-ai euh\ufb01 m @ .pet<\/p>\n
in View of   t’|’u’:x””uu’if’u”:’:’i’
\ncalled the    auiveci at
\nthe spot  Hospital.\n<\/p>\n
In  __  __eontex1=\ufb01on put forth by the
\n the  fer the petitioner attempts
\nto   the scene ofoiienee which might<\/p>\n
   manner in which Sn’ Puruehotham<\/p>\n
     \ufb02ed. awed glee  mfened to the<\/p>\n
amt air  tliroii\ufb01 ‘u’u”.:;c-‘.1 the 33%: has -\ufb01t-“H tn<\/p>\n
EHIHFDTUW 9|:\n<\/p>\n
 _opnm”naf_’ that he had not insianinneousiy  The<\/p>\n
  meamn’ g of the part ofthe body was also retenecl’ ‘<\/p>\n
‘     In ihct the reference made by the learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
petitionertothepoatmortzamreportietnoontendthatthe<\/p>\n
” bu-_—\n<\/p>\n
o<\/p>\n
‘I7<\/p>\n
‘ . ‘I
\n aux: U|.!.|.I}.I uuqgulmuuu 6: Lu<\/p>\n
txajectory would suggest that he had \ufb01xed   ~
\nthe same level and the deceased w.aa..s_tandmg_ T  AL V<\/p>\n
fawn’ g the man who \ufb01md and net’ <\/p>\n
argument would mine’ I:\n<\/p>\n
Rao more probable  as \ufb01le two
\nether; who were    must have been<\/p>\n
4-:\n<\/p>\n
cha.”.-i”-..g 9.. .bL’.a  t..v.A:,=-V–.–…..-.’;…’.A–.1.r.’_e.~.e,Iz  t-he-.t they have<\/p>\n
1;..- ‘n.;_.\n<\/p>\n
t  a.~uun’f”ui% 351% h’ “””‘<\/p>\n
G WEE<\/p>\n
not   the ieamed Gounaei.\n<\/p>\n
  Rao that he came
\nout to   his master and when he was
\nbeing ..atmttKc\u00a3i3 A be  lite seems to be the more<\/p>\n
 gcce   iit\u00e9blb  A\ufb02er \ufb01ring.’ since’ he did not die<\/p>\n
   he mut have attempted to run away a\ufb02er<\/p>\n
       the <\/p>\n
‘I’I._  -pl QJI~ln’I.JhUill “ml-:Iln:II:;Innr C-‘In  =f\u00a3.. I-I-I.l’Il’ \ufb02\ufb02\ufb02lll w<\/p>\n
.. .!.I.I_ _ L1. __._<\/p>\n
V’    the scene of   nor has anyone<\/p>\n
‘spokenwithregmdtotbat. Thoughthelemnedcounaclwaa<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
,\\’|<\/p>\n
sarcastic about the size of the boulder so he to  he<\/p>\n
the size of which is seen in the pheeeg;;;px; ”<\/p>\n
that it is big enough to cause    <\/p>\n
with. The right of pm te defencef’     hy <\/p>\n
 th   as to<\/p>\n
cf  inf:-rim-,9   t_t__’I  t<\/p>\n
—JIe.’d- .–u LEA: r-in
\nI.I.l.l.r _|_.lJavI-tun-I  riureuu _A – >–_–.–..–<\/p>\n
\n\nwme-.u . sight\n\nhiinaeifor the   \n\n null: I\n\nby the    'put the same\ncannot   evidence as done in\n\n<\/pre>\n
. . We] to  seen is that the chain of
\nevents the property. the guaxd<\/p>\n
 cut in   pxevent the crime on hearing the<\/p>\n
i i ”   ifan attempt to attack the penon of<\/p>\n
   it  ”  and in that circumstance. private<\/p>\n
d4Er;r:”*.~w.-_.ih.–  it emanate m ‘.2-.;-t.|.1..t FI.L*.he.1-‘, t…_hn<\/p>\n
‘_._I!__J._ LI__A<\/p>\n
 siatenierit of the neighbours wouid mmeaue mat them was<\/p>\n
no and the materials also  that  fuse<\/p>\n
  {was removed. In such circumstance, the incident has taken<\/p>\n
place. Theleamedcounselforthepetitionerhasalaozelied<\/p>\n
9<\/span>
\nJ2<\/p>\n
1.<\/p>\n
on the decisions to exphain the view” expre seed bzvf:  ”<\/p>\n
Supreme Court with vegan! to the vmarmer  it it<\/p>\n
private defence and it is further  <\/p>\n
decision would also indicate-ithgrt the   to = ”<\/p>\n
private tieferrce is to    Sessions  and<\/p>\n
     case of  @
\nRAJA ssxHs;\u00e9;4.%i,   (cri) 16] the facts
\ninvolvctl  has exchange of hot words
\nover  of  rims destroying the crops of the
\nacceeseq.  others who went to the piece<\/p>\n
. i   sheep  and untied it hum’ the rope, which<\/p>\n
    of words hetwee-1.1 the  and <\/p>\n
  when the dwased kl} do-.-.-rr alter ..;…….*-‘-*-.*;:*.g the<\/p>\n
V injuries, the accused  another hinw on his neck. it is<\/p>\n
 context when the accused took the plea of right of<\/p>\n
h it   defence, the Horfble Supreme Court expressed that<\/p>\n
the entire incident must be exarnined with proper care when<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
\ud83d\ude10<\/p>\n
such defence is taken and the accused must    <\/p>\n
were circumstances giving rise In it<\/p>\n
apprehending that either death   ._<\/p>\n
E3<\/p>\n
s’5’i’:”{i’E or-‘ ceearrzsreaae   ‘\u00e9-;.~.1Tr}.~\u00e9.he *-<\/p>\n
\ninvoivefl was a case    between the\nsisters and  e  am: the 6\naccused      by Janguram\n<\/pre>\n
and when.eh_e’  the accused appellant\n<\/p>\n
 –_ .. danguram was holding and
\nassaulteti”-hire   and caused seweral injuries<\/p>\n
git’ is in’  the right of private defence<\/p>\n
H-ti-W  96- 9! !PC was -.-.-.=r..-.=-.mLnerJ. ms! in fact t.._h-.<\/p>\n
I__._<\/p>\n
   an s ueu mat ii’ ‘net iii ‘htract<\/p>\n
 such a question can be  down. in the<\/p>\n
   efjaear smea vs. STATE or I-IIMACHAL PRADESH<\/p>\n
 [(195614 SOC 296] the facts involved in that case has been<\/p>\n
  since the deceased was unarmed and there was<\/p>\n
no justi\ufb01cation on the part of the appellant for  a<\/p>\n
:’i ‘R:-\n<\/p>\n
H-4%’ m an-n-“”6 in :.:.-.r_-. ca_ne4A-_ND.VV,K_i\\!Q’\u00a7’\u00a7iEaR”jVS. V t<\/p>\n
seven: blow on his head with a takwa. In the case  <\/p>\n
KAHAR vs. STATE 01? BIHAR [(1971y3s.s_cc   tent  ” ‘s V<\/p>\n
had taken place at about noon on  at”a_ it<\/p>\n
\ufb01eld in the village where the    <\/p>\n
dilfelent por\ufb01ons and vtrhen  his
\n1-.eig,hbcu.-re.-“s sI.re1rI.t to    cthers wen: also
\nthere, Han-ay-2 am’.    mi; whihe
\niianhu was  ii  “aft:-lat s’u-\ufb01g-3 Hi.’\u20aca}’e=.t
\nordexed    when: there was a
\ndispute   was attack on each
\nother,  based on the evidence that
\nwas   “Court a\ufb01er trial. In the case of<\/p>\n
” ll \u00b0-JH?a.l\u00a7MAL vs. sTA*rE’o:r HARYANA [(199412 sec 551] the<\/p>\n
   then: was a light between two group<\/p>\n
=.-.’   es.c.h cth_..r s.n._I.i.  injuries and in<\/p>\n
 that cmiieiit the Hc\ufb01”c” Sapreme %’art had 11:11′. that the<\/p>\n
  need not prove the plea of seiftie\ufb01’:uce “ycrui all<\/p>\n
h   ll\u00e9easonable doubt, but if preponderance of probabilities. the<\/p>\n
plea becomes plausible then they have to be given that<\/p>\n
:’ %——–\n<\/p>\n
up<\/p>\n
bene\ufb01t and it was noticed that the same  * ‘
\nsome cxtcn t. Similar’ ‘ is the new’ tar the  “of; Pl\u00a7.g1’_’3;jU._V M’ ”
\nPRASAD SAH vs. same or BIl;lAR1’_’_'[(1;97ti}4″ :SCCl:28\u00a7};.:<\/p>\n
From me’ declare’ ‘ ns cited bylV._tlrex  f  <\/p>\n
petitioner what is evident is that_ H_on’ble’* Court
\n…….’~-=-‘ -…………….~’-=-‘-if-~’ the    me: \ufb02 taken<\/p>\n
its -‘new and all the  f-~-  casessvnm ‘-me.-…-“-:3.-*–..;..~.-.<\/p>\n
\nhad been   in the \ufb01at
\nsuch     the learned counsel
\nfor   all the said cases, there
\nwas a  the offence which had been
\ninves\ufb01ggteclll  had been \ufb01led, and in the said<\/p>\n
cases  been taken which had been<\/p>\n
    and therefore it is for the Sessions<\/p>\n
Jn\ufb01ge  Ate erar.-r*..*3e this asp.-..-‘-t and then-..=.-.!’!.er to M<\/p>\n
 iaesteci .i;efoIe the  forum. it is t.’aei’cfore wntentled<\/p>\n
  the instant case also’ , charge’ of murder should have<\/p>\n
‘   liaeen tram’ ed and only in such prosecution launched, it<\/p>\n
would have been open for S11′ Purushotham Rae to take such<\/p>\n
I
\n:2<\/p>\n
‘a.\n<\/p>\n
JE-\n<\/p>\n
u- .\n<\/p>\n
de\ufb01nm and tn ,iu_t.Li3r m- \ufb01n”  the <\/p>\n
and the Police it dwizie on t…..*–‘- ~—t.:_.l\ufb01e__”\u00ab<\/p>\n
contention, the decision  above cannot  ii  <\/p>\n
since the circumstances and the   <\/p>\n
not analogous to the instant     *’<\/p>\n
case is also a case of murder
\nHowever, what requiles’  :.;g\ufb02\u00a7j;e  which
\nthe investigation   the incident
\nI.an.. the    the Magietmte
\nant’. it’.    placed on the
\nsaid   an =ttip}~~:~.+.er;’.;–;;-.5-.–. -.-…-g.-.-=..  etill m
\n \u00abint  “whether it woiiid ieqiiire a
\n  it  as prayed by the petitioner or
\n  “-era’ should have made out any grievance
\n‘Heme before any other forum. Though the
\n pi  for the petitioner contends that the
\n of a case for murder was a must in View of the<\/p>\n
p1rc’a..____n contained in Sections 299 and 300 Cr.P.C, what<\/p>\n
42<\/span><\/p>\n
was the informant to the jurisdictional police.  \u00e9hfe =<\/p>\n
incident on 23.12.2oo1%anc1 based..on.._the ‘?EI’4tietei1ed.,. kt<\/p>\n
investigation has been made    <\/p>\n
investigation the chmue      <\/p>\n
petitioners had the able   that<\/p>\n
\ufb02-35:’: nlun ha:-I \ufb01lnrl _g_  1; ‘nix<\/p>\n
L ,.._…,__  s_I\ufb02eget_Ir_n_a hne<\/p>\n
 made that San’   ‘..ua’*- -‘-pu-*-mu’-‘*-. no<\/p>\n
mw steps he  the mvmeenta\ufb01on
\nmade    the Home
\nThem1iore,__  (xnnplaint of murder against
\nSri  ttm\u00e9etgittt-mg the course of investigation<\/p>\n
has  the Police that the incident he<\/p>\n
. . ” not\ufb01ken  in  reported, but it was a case of<\/p>\n
:\n<\/p>\n
 t.__.1e were ci_1t_:umetnnoe lending to that.<\/p>\n
31*}<\/p>\n
 petiiioneis himseif stating in   to the h”i1e<\/p>\n
Miniomr that it has been repieeented to mm” ‘ that Dr. S.<\/p>\n
   took out his pistol and shot at Mu-rugan<\/p>\n
when he had gone to aakforhiawagee, them iano material<\/p>\n
3<\/span>
\nJ2<\/p>\n
–\n<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
whatsoever and as such the question of   it  <\/p>\n
murder against him did not arise.
\nthat context that Sri Ptnushothaia  \ufb01\u00e9e.,A%A.not\u00ab.  ._<\/p>\n
pistol. but the _perusal of c01\u00a7–_m~o:,i”‘   A<\/p>\n
‘ 4<\/p>\n
only for his  1_n.:t..r :_,u., i;\u00ab;-L:-+i;.-=;’.=-ml.   dar-\n<\/p>\n
 Based oi:      iuveaiiga
\n the nggm  occurred the
\nquestion   oi  not arise as
\nroutine  is eamhliahed to be
\nfaulty   appmpmiaae forum.\n<\/p>\n
16. Though-v__thei’ iearned’ counsel for the petitioner’ ‘<\/p>\n
  case where a person is killed, the
\n  Iegiatered and nought to allege that in the<\/p>\n
  such case is registered’ only because<\/p>\n
K V –V  is in\ufb02uential and his colleague o\ufb01ieera
\n him, the ieapondents series’ may disp um <\/p>\n
   and on bQh\u00a7l_f \u00ab.1: the .-,\u00ab.r.\u00bb-.-_n.–……..=r-u–2 it ia –……–~…….-I-.;e<\/p>\n
4!<\/p>\n
To substantiate the aspect that it is not  ”
\nspecial tmatment in the pmamt c;-men; M
\nwhen similar circumstances amae   _
\nattempted to commit the   ” V L’<\/p>\n
—-n—— -n._<\/p>\n
miirxi\ufb01 eases hair: *;<Iii."'r:e\u00a7%'aa:e'.i' s7v'ir'u:uue-*- 'ii auuu"-'-<\/p>\n
cases  sf   'a -iint of cases<\/p>\n
 ~ In<\/p>\n
 ito sac\/1999 an am\u00bb can 333\n<\/p>\n
– F’ 91.1;  or the Kurntakn latest Ant. –
\n \u00abiwhslfe efie”””‘I’ajimulla and Ahmed Khan. and three
\n  _  total of Eve accused pet-“eons attacked the
\n‘V  uewhile they were challenged when they were
\n X pbzfunitting theft of Sandalwood and when they attacked
\n the police, two named above were shot and they died<\/p>\n
due to the iniuriea received.
\nThe accused have been charged for deceit}! and aennult
\non Public Servants etc and ease in P1’ as three ancueed<\/p>\n
nix
\n‘7.\n<\/p>\n
45<\/span><\/p>\n
have abaoondod after several hearinga. at ohm. _<\/p>\n
noted, after the inveatigatioz-_1;.\u00bb.Atho  ‘ix ‘tit_i!yV”ogainst’4 ” ” <\/p>\n
the accused and not agai\ufb01gt  <\/p>\n
action in self-defence.\n<\/p>\n
. Attihclo Or No 3189   V-“–~  <\/p>\n
Bittappa s\/o P\u00a7na;ppa%o*\u00a7iA:t;fo\u00a7ie, Bidargu’   mange’ .
\nwhere on the   i2.__1:..tti9i\u00a79′; this house was
\nattacko.:i:Aby_ml1taot;o gggd  ISIG f\ufb02lappa opened fire<\/p>\n
with hing oiwfof  dacoits and on CC No<\/p>\n
 ..    convicted (home again<\/p>\n
 the  aiction in self defence was not<\/p>\n
 ”    \ufb01ns)
\n~   as am; 14139 an ass — on the night of 10*<\/p>\n
  _11vh t”J’anhu’a:~y 1939. at 0115 hours, one B v<\/p>\n
A 3 ” ‘ T.    S\/o Venkatoahappa of<\/p>\n
A  village opened fire on daooito who made<\/p>\n
 attempt on his house and one of the daooits was<\/p>\n
 killed. And the case was made out only against the<\/p>\n
accused pemona and no case was made aminet the<\/p>\n
person who acted in self defence.<\/p>\n
-_Iu\\’-3″””””\n<\/p>\n
4 .’aa:.~.maa-.-.— 93 cr 291:9: we 39: !”‘:~W””*-:*e Lo
\nu\ufb01iinow ciacoita -tt””ed and  cf
\ncompiainarxt ivta\ufb01iu\ufb01ath —-parea {are \u00abaw. 3;-=j:=..–.a\u00e9;’o;~. .-;:;e.1a
\nPuiiaiah and the caaci ._””””:jan.t.”.o_t’u_”:-“;’ <\/p>\n
‘*7.\n<\/p>\n
under 395 iFC and the in  inc\n<\/p>\n
5. iiohmauin  in   307 c’c
\nwhen-: one (was kiiieci in an
\nencounter cud one   in the incident.\n<\/p>\n
     on  as
\n   person or pemons<\/p>\n
  ;in: c!f_ \u00abtat\u00e9\ufb01w were hauled up.<\/p>\n
6} .  9512001 where one Neaarkar
\nattacked  on 21.07.2001 and won killed in
\nactioo of ‘ 3.1’Jf\u00ab’dcf6\ufb02O6 by the local police. Case was<\/p>\n
 up against the accused Neaarkar and not on<\/p>\n
~ firaoaegttxvho acted in self defence.<\/p>\n
 to ,  17.; The above cases an: noticed only to indicate that<\/p>\n
t  were instances of other cases as well even earlier to<\/p>\n
 ‘  gcriod and after the period of the case on hand, where<\/p>\n
}T_!Iii_\ufb02At.I_3 i_11d_ivi:_1uta_lc as  as police had taken action in<\/p>\n
J,<\/p>\n
F.\n<\/p>\n
preventing the happening of a cum’ e and the  ‘<\/p>\n
did not warrant \ufb01ling of muIder.:eaaeo fanc1i_’\u00a7_ne._ AV’<\/p>\n
favoritism could be alleged in the hi’<\/p>\n
the only case in which no   _  is <\/p>\n
because of the incident   ‘-\n<\/p>\n
hot:-tee. V  AV  t <\/p>\n
13.   “mAe–m*e’: 111′ g this aspect of
\nthe      ofinveatigation
\n out  and also by the GOD
\nis  and from the said moulds it
\nis gamed out V’that.”‘ttnv1nediately after the incident Sri<\/p>\n
t  Raehi\ufb01nsetr has inthnned the same to the<\/p>\n
   viz., the Sanjaynagar Police station. 011<\/p>\n
   we Statement or am t 51<\/p>\n
the w!io.e<\/p>\n
3%
\nI
\n\u00a35′
\n1’!
\nI
\nIf
\n\u00a7
\n‘l<\/p>\n
__ _. LL _ 4._.L___ 1.’ L …..<\/p>\n
 include the ne1gh’ ‘ hours, other peraona and aiso Sri<\/p>\n
   i.e., one of the petitioners and the mother of the<\/p>\n
deceased Murugan. In fact the mother has stated that the<\/p>\n
43%….\n<\/p>\n
deceased son was a Vagabond. ‘T”ne COD has aiso
\nfurther investigations in the matter. Ultimately   * ‘
\nsame, a charge sheet dated 23. 10.2C__)02.was     K V’ it
\ncos thmugh Senior APP as agamet thee
\nfor the offences punishable ‘tinder     ‘
\nand 393 of 190. The learned   the
\ncharge sheet has   adjoumed to
\n31.12.2932 :–‘-..”.-.!.:_.-‘-.1   closed as<\/p>\n
ahateri. Thoiigh3=’theV  4_ an um ymiuu 1<\/p>\n
attempteti    oondueteci by COD
\ndoes   such change is not
\njusti\ufb01shie:  ‘  to state the de\ufb01nition of
\nmbhery    as contained in Sections 390
\n “-.s11″(i rm aniieiaei that the learned Magieuate has not
\n   the respondent Dr. Krishnamurthy would
\n  of the said details am beyond the<\/p>\n
  CT ‘ nucu um 1 U i’:\n<\/p>\n
i  \u00e9\u00e9upieme Court has  ‘ own the iaw on this aspect and<\/p>\n
I
\n‘3<\/p>\n
cited the dec1a1o’ ‘ net in this regard. In the case of  ‘<\/p>\n
INSTITUTE or MEDICAL SClENC1″\u00a2SA”.'”11lvIlPLg4(‘)V”‘Y%VI\u00a73″E.S\u00a7’4 “Uz~.Ij-:_)N=t,V & At<\/p>\n
vs. UNION or-‘ INDIA [1996] 11_’tl:\u00a7 <\/p>\n
Supreme court has  the  <\/p>\n
mr-\u00abmm\u00bb-.2, 197:3 pzgggzilzgg  tab  into<\/p>\n
the cat — ai”\u00a3e’r;ws   ‘-ct:-‘.5. 1:-. new-t~,…..t<\/p>\n
of cognizable oi’I”s.r.noc,  Fi\ufb01  e\ufb01ni\u00e9 -pin-san’:1-uma”*” the<\/p>\n
Pmcedtues, 4.mlW 1   “WT” ! WW” “\u00b0
\ninvcs\ufb01ggtse        Hon’blc Supmmc
\nCourt  (1) of Section 154 of<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C.  ‘   in wine’ 1: the mforma’ tion<\/p>\n
.    .3 in&  in also nomad’ and thereafter<\/p>\n
  t’.L.-_–. ”   Court has stated that when the<\/p>\n
I
\n3′
\n1<\/span>
\nI’
\n;=’-\n<\/p>\n
5′
\n5<\/span>
\n:3.\n<\/p>\n
I2-\n<\/p>\n
53<\/span><\/p>\n
\n*3
\nis
\n5<\/span>
\n:\n<\/p>\n
 taken, the oonapiainant is giver: pr\ufb01T:i”- and-r<\/p>\n
 190 read with Section 200 of” the C’a’.P.C. to lay the<\/p>\n
. V.  tiomplaint be\ufb01m: the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take<\/p>\n
cognizance of the o\ufb01bnce and the Magistrate is required to<\/p>\n
1<\/span>
\n‘3<\/p>\n
enquire into the complaint as provided in the… .<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C. The Magistrate, after  ta: ” ‘V<\/p>\n
prima facie case instead of issuing  it<\/p>\n
the o\ufb01bnoe under Chapter XII  ‘tin \u00e9mbmit a
\nr.-.\ufb01,.ert. !f be __..\ufb01nde  not disclose any
\nrn”x”–*euue– tr; ‘–…..e’— fr:\u00ab:*.herV’eeth’\u00a5e:.-3,  tn dismiss<\/p>\n
the    “”~…r.~.’–‘.’-.’.’.. On the \u00a2…….’–I’<\/p>\n
hand.  muoniea pea-.a
\nfacie    is emjaowma to take
\n  would issue process to the
\naectgaed,   Court, after explaining’ ‘ the<\/p>\n
–   that the petitioner without<\/p>\n
   procedure in not entitled to approach the<\/p>\n
   Writ Petition and seeking a direction In<\/p>\n
 r:T’i’ai2,’fti~a’-3 i.’r.te*.i’:’.a*\u00e9.e.’: by *…h- GB! I.I;r.hit.=!I_ is 1;\u00a2_J!:-  to<\/p>\n
  into aii or  aiferu-“ae and as sake}: % =4-L-.-3-. 9.!<\/p>\n
i,_ A_I__<\/p>\n
‘   ham High Goult in refusing to grant Ieiiefwas upheid. 1: me<\/p>\n
case of GANGADHAR JANARDAN MHATRE VS. STRTE Oi?<\/p>\n
:\n<\/p>\n
\u00a31<\/p>\n
um  ‘IV.\n<\/p>\n
‘ -IJEI<\/p>\n
MAHARASHTRA AND one ((200417 soc  A’<\/p>\n
Supreme court was considering e\u00a7eweeo& kt<\/p>\n
Petition under Arno’ le 226 of the   _<\/p>\n
situation where the  oft’<\/p>\n
I-n-[via<\/p>\n
 of \ufb02ee -sag .*’:’q.-em   -to  of’–1′
\nafter noticing toot tfne   ea. regiaiereli on
\n29.5.1937    committed the
\ncase   noticed the
\n  the Cr.P.C. by adverting to
\nsectione’1e4, 15$  to 203 Gr.P.C. The Hon’ble
\nSugeteme  noticed that even though there in<\/p>\n
t  ” no  to \ufb01le a protest petition, the e”<\/p>\n
nah:-nn’nn-I-nv|’I-unmI\ufb02i1’|:u:|-1-liar<\/p>\n
‘- IIIO I-IIIIIII-IV!!!-I J-I-I Ilvolvll-III-D<\/p>\n
re-L _” ‘~_ __:-1.. _.’4..’__.<\/p>\n
_; __._ ._ 4_2____ __ 1.1.. e__ 4|… :1. ….l…J……_.I…. …-_…1._…_ cu…
\nGama: .\u00a7’\ufb02_  aVal.|auIU ID “ID muglauuln Ill\ufb02el I \ufb01.a-I-H.711<\/p>\n
 17’3(2;)i:\u00a7).AofC1-.P.C. when the report is fblwanieti by the Poiioe<\/p>\n
 explained. Among the said options, the Magistrate<\/p>\n
.    the option to disagree with the report and also to direct<\/p>\n
further investigation under Section 156(3) and require the<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
335-…\n<\/p>\n
 \u00ab;*’-  ceruianlszneu we were cute.’ u..r=.{m .A.:a=:- .<\/p>\n
Police to make a further report. The power  ”
\n190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. is also expl(:iiie’d\u00ab .to’! a!eie.’V1jthev..A kk
\nMagistrate can ignore the    .’<\/p>\n
mvee\ufb01ga\ufb01ng O\ufb01icer. A\ufb02er jig we  * T’<\/p>\n
 “b  \ufb02it’: “w’i’it<\/p>\n
Petition since    “proper temetiy”<\/p>\n
without -avqilie:g_’  the Or.P.C. In
\nthe cagepf  Vs. STATE 05′ Bil-JAR
\nAND (:Rs__  though while examining the
\npower mar  same poeition with regard
\nto  of under Sections 173(2), 190(1)<\/p>\n
\u20ac<\/p>\n
I-I VI-Jl I-I<\/p>\n
I
\nI<\/p>\n
A.\n<\/p>\n
3236i,   was hefre \ufb01r i1″ii’h3e .-‘?aiif\u00bb’r*’-c;uc- “”*-..-uiii”<\/p>\n
l’<\/p>\n
  a  under  32 of the C’nnatii:uiion of indie
\n for a direction to conduct enquiry by CB1 since<\/p>\n
‘  to the petitioner his son was munieled. The<\/p>\n
petit:ioner’s son who was working an Additional<\/p>\n
I
\n2%-\n<\/p>\n
Commissioner was found dead in his o\ufb02ioial   ”<\/p>\n
19.1.2006 and grievance of the petitioner   <\/p>\n
Oi\ufb01mala’ in collusion” with acme    _<\/p>\n
the e.’l.eo:.s_u_zet1 are pxojeotjng  .a12ici’c1e;”‘ ” V<\/p>\n
.\n<\/p>\n
%eral men-sentauone . ..\n<\/p>\n
5″\n<\/p>\n
\u00a7
\nI
\n*2
\n=1′
\n1 \u00ab’4,-\n<\/p>\n
{I
\nII
\nF’<\/p>\n
xeauita, the petitioner   shoe no
\naction was takcgioyl   inetitioner. The
\n110111111:   11114.  also, after
\nnoticing   156, 190 and 200 of
\n(:1-.P.C;__  that the petitioner can lay a
\noomplaiiit. and as such a Writ Petition<\/p>\n
for_c\u00a71mtion.Vt1o GEE  investigate i not tenable. In the<\/p>\n
 to   vs, SIATE or xanam (AIR 2001 so<\/p>\n
 au3?\u00a7,”-{E5 nH?.3n’7*.:1.e Sup:-we Co-41+ =– -*’-‘-‘—-‘*–r’ *.h– in<\/p>\n
‘tall! I. -I-IIII-‘I Inulluranlswnrv-A<\/p>\n
 ago seooiiri Fix’? does 11ota”1aea1’_ii.’- tu-<\/p>\n
 mfoxmaf T ” Htion Iecetved’ ‘\ufb01ratin time wouidhe the recon!’ ofF’iR,<\/p>\n
butiit would however be poaible that more than one piece of<\/p>\n
    may be received from time in time from di\ufb02erent<\/p>\n
people in repeat of the same incident and in such situation<\/p>\n
I
\nJ:\n<\/p>\n
‘F:\n<\/p>\n
ll<\/p>\n
bcfon: submitting the report, the G\ufb01”ioer is   <\/p>\n
investigate into all other connected  “Ia:  i:o  ” he <\/p>\n
the decision in the case of KASHMER: ‘~ iaovj  ‘E-V):-:E.eI’aH:}’uV–“‘<\/p>\n
ADMINISTRATION AND ANR.[19ag  eh ii’ \u00bb<\/p>\n
by the learned counsel for  ‘ tiletoeeivee, the<\/p>\n
H__.’b1e Supreme com  case of death in<\/p>\n
–L<\/p>\n
%% o’.:=*..’..*J._-,r 9.:-,._-1 ..e-e:-..,t13.oI .;,-i_11–.’q:.g,1.,L1_fe1r1’\u00a3xV.’ leiiftla\ufb01on came to<\/p>\n
shield the   coxiifniii\ufb01t haii bee-ii
\n\ufb01led   two sub inspectors and
\nthe eohesehzee  refer the matter to the
\ncm hue he Court be\ufb01ne whom the charge<\/p>\n
 been’VoiiBtoitted to exercise the power under
\n   Gr.P.C. to direct the can for pmper<\/p>\n
 The said direction was however issued after<\/p>\n
 a\ufb01e\ufb01-‘..g the .%*..e  in t.h_1.a.t oooe as the same was<\/p>\n
I
\n*3.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
19. Having noticed’ the decisions   V’<\/p>\n
Hon’bk: Supmmc Court, it wow   h x<\/p>\n
declaration of law is that this  <\/p>\n
c.ntmannm’ ‘ g a petition under’  the: <\/p>\n
_: Ldjn in direct the (3131   since\n<\/p>\n
—–‘-‘-g in \ufb01x:  T  _%z:: is mph
\npmviaiona      either far tine
\nm’ taxman’   the remedies
\n  grievance with mgaxd
\nto  .oa1hphh1ts. the manner of
\nhlve\ufb01gh\ufb01iip\ufb01orh  charge sheet. In the instant<\/p>\n
A  ‘mg:  to the Home Mininter by his fax<\/p>\n
    tuning certain cimumatanoca and seeking<\/p>\n
 Ieauoix\ufb01ndicated in the  m\ufb01h\ufb01\ufb01m is u t Inc<\/p>\n
a if – rnnmugr 1;, QB! fa-wr in_ggHunf-Inn The <\/p>\n
II ‘ -E I  3
\n.I-‘J-I’-“-I|4II.ll,’u’.I’.’.Il-IE, Isl-II-t I-IIII 5 lull awn and Inna-quu-an-6 c—- ——–<\/p>\n
  ‘ ‘ er of Police was a ‘batchma’ to and had jumped to<\/p>\n
%  \u00e9onclu.-mus and also that the Head of the con cm in<\/p>\n
friendly terms with Dr.S.KrislmamuIthy in whose house the<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
1′!<\/p>\n
incident had occurred and as such then: is  ”<\/p>\n
cover up. The said reason alone appeaxa  uh’<\/p>\n
and not even a cimumatance near :1?!)  <\/p>\n
in KASMERI DEVI’a case    moat <\/p>\n
by Dr.S.Krishnamuxthy__sueh   who<\/p>\n
‘”‘m–“‘ w— -=   o.._,,hiuh-mat gig,<\/p>\n
_._.___!_’I L ..\n<\/p>\n
wouuonIyr:%<\/p>\n
might have  as if it in his
\n   other O\ufb01ioera need not
\nbe   at the stage when the
\npe\ufb01\ufb01onidwaa  happened was. that the
\n  a\ufb02er the same was<\/p>\n
. V.     Except for makm’ g a vagu_ e allegation<\/p>\n
  jam: been threatened by the Police when she<\/p>\n
   -‘.2-.1i.ai.ir..m., no :.a.!.1.I_-ampt has been<\/p>\n
  to art} a “‘iittr=” -o”‘”}a”-rut or uH”u’r.:’:laia to<\/p>\n
 the O\ufb01iee” ran in the hierarchy. Even the date on winch’ ‘<\/p>\n
‘    went to San1aynagar’ Police Station is not mentioned in<\/p>\n
the petition nor is this reason stated in the representation<\/p>\n
I
\n12<\/span><\/p>\n
‘5}<\/p>\n
mad e by the learn_ ed counsel to the Home   V’<\/p>\n
under the instructions of the pe\ufb01\ufb01enen. A  <\/p>\n
by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, on <\/p>\n
to \ufb01le a complaint under   a * L’<\/p>\n
..*’=act o..d. …a-.’…g t…e  ‘he,-91
\nwas before the  iefelence of the
\nwe to  been mean. it
\nwas   have given additional
\n   as stated by the
\nHomes1.pmee\u00a2oam;1ioi;e case of ‘I’.T.AN’l’HONY. In this
\n g .”‘rici:ir.~e\u00a2i. above, though it is stated in the<\/p>\n
 15 other labourers along with<\/p>\n
lvllpa’ I-lb!-3-yl-I -.Iv ‘Ii’oI-\ufb02y -Io’-I up .——–u– — _—— —_-…—.—. .–.–….._<\/p>\n
  Vnvlzuur-nVi’..~;=ii~n.. n in _ 1′; id in ha 9 nnrh-:rl’ In-m_ ;g;n_:_3 wg\ufb02g <\/p>\n
_….-_ 1.’|…” ..\n<\/p>\n
I’<\/p>\n
 them ‘i3aV_1ive either approached the Police on their own or at<\/p>\n
theurinatance of the petitioners and as such except for the<\/p>\n
”  g\u00e9vennentn made and the assumptions and aurmieea stated,<\/p>\n
no other material has been placed by the petitioners before<\/p>\n
I
\nJ5<\/p>\n
6-\n<\/p>\n
 u\u20ac\ufb01i7I’\ufb01 Gt BIT-Sulu1n.|u|u”‘1″uu4u: , uuuu Sf<\/p>\n
the investigating authorities when the   ”<\/p>\n
pmgxes. Further the cliange-sheet’*’wa,s’ the, it it<\/p>\n
Magistrate as far back as on 23.   gi\\i ‘”V~:.<\/p>\n
having by then \ufb01led these     * L’<\/p>\n
.2-..’.-Jar.-.-. of th.-Lr r\u00e9g,..t..I.I m _   either\n<\/p>\n
– — —  is–5″‘–.”   as-hk antler
\nthe c:;r.r-.c. as     in
\nthe case oi”_Al;i.u  SCIENCES,
\n  JANARDHAN MHATRE
\nand   for} me: amen. Thete\ufb01nve, without
\nexemiaiiigeuehi  for mandamus in the manner<\/p>\n
 fer   that too with the fragile allegation<\/p>\n
 ”  i\u00a7ietn”1e\u00ab_.of  \u00e9tion a-.’cam_ ‘ at the investigating agency<\/p>\n
 :1
\n“‘1-\\’<\/p>\n
– nguld net be<\/p>\n
“‘3
\nI-lb<\/p>\n
..a.’..’.’l.’.3.-.”!’.’.’i..”.’!99.’_<\/p>\n
_. -1.rin_ic-n c.-Jzpgeeeed by the<\/p>\n
I<\/p>\n
 3ii_’l’fTi’I”.’7″‘I’.”a \\.A.I|.l.I I. iwuuu us<\/p>\n
 the  oounaei ibr the petitioner eonds  the<\/p>\n
 of the COD would indicate inconsistencies, the<\/p>\n
  cannot in any case be examined’ in this Writ Petition<\/p>\n
and as pointed out by the I-Ion’ble Supreme Gourt, it can<\/p>\n
I\n<\/p>\n
42.<\/p>\n
only he as per the pmoedun: available  *<\/p>\n
even any further investigation is onlgnundcr   K ”<\/p>\n
Hence, the petition to the extent dream  dtarddw <\/p>\n
to refer the case to the CB] <\/p>\n
…f_L 111. _.”t    outhorities
\n V..V…..’V’ ‘t-.’;\u00a7.*”d=’t.ila’.:.h befozzz i-
\nhad  d;d~.   and-~ Sectrioii
\n342, 185:   ind deceased Niurugan
\nand whenh  in such a situation, the
\nqueatioh’ of  grant of compensation also
\nwd”‘1;'”\\H19t   A’ <\/p>\n
t  do  f;h\u00a7..Ic8|\ufb02f, the following:
\nl’\\I3’I’\\Ii’I’3
\n.’:\u00a3.l.3.!=\u00a3.:l\ufb02!a1<\/p>\n
 i] For the reasons and conclusions meached supra,
\nboth the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.5250T\/02 and<\/p>\n
\u20aci6,’.71,N_).2. oJe dimloged.  discharged.<\/p>\n
9 :r:—\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
ii) Partichobearthcirownoostn.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Karnataka High Court M Mallan vs State Of Karnataka By Its … on 8 April, 2008 Author: A.S.Bopanna IN THE HIGH coum’ op KARNATAKA AT \u00e9 ‘ DATED THIS THE 3′”! DAY~oII–.a.PRI]_L V BEFORE _ THE HON’BLE MR. .I D$’I*I_QE \ufb02”S__BO?}I1N!\u00a2.\u00a7””‘ % INRIT PET!T!Q!\\_! (….|.I!\u00a51+’~’IL’!.’!..-!’,.’A.’.’.\u00a7’=I”.:} . CIW _ . ,’ urn nl:vnImtn1t”~I;:n ca;-1 1?. in:\\’rEn”~ […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-53259","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-karnataka-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nM Mallan vs State Of Karnataka By Its ... on 8 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M Mallan vs State Of Karnataka By Its ... on 8 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2008-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-18T08:16:31+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"42 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M Mallan vs State Of Karnataka By Its … on 8 April, 2008\",\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-18T08:16:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008\"},\"wordCount\":5235,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Karnataka High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008\",\"name\":\"M Mallan vs State Of Karnataka By Its ... on 8 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2008-04-07T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-18T08:16:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M Mallan vs State Of Karnataka By Its … on 8 April, 2008\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M Mallan vs State Of Karnataka By Its ... on 8 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M Mallan vs State Of Karnataka By Its ... on 8 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2008-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-18T08:16:31+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"42 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M Mallan vs State Of Karnataka By Its … on 8 April, 2008","datePublished":"2008-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-18T08:16:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008"},"wordCount":5235,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Karnataka High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008","name":"M Mallan vs State Of Karnataka By Its ... on 8 April, 2008 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2008-04-07T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-18T08:16:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/m-mallan-vs-state-of-karnataka-by-its-on-8-april-2008#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M Mallan vs State Of Karnataka By Its … on 8 April, 2008"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53259","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=53259"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/53259\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53259"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=53259"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=53259"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}