Karnataka High Court
B K Badarinath vs State By Kolar Town Police on 3 July, 2008
Author: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
Bench: Huluvadi G.Ramesh
IN THE EEGH COURT 01: KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Dated this the 3"' day of July, 2003
Before
HIE HONBLE MR JUSYYCE Hb*LL-mp; G
Between:
B K Bacirinath, 4? yrs
Sfo late B M Kodandaramaiah Setty
5*" Cr<)ss,Kowstl1uba
Near Town Police Station . " ' " petitioner in
Gowripete, Kolar __ { V " _ Cr1.P 143304
BKSn'nath, 493% '
SfolateBMKodandm:am_Se¥€y _,
#275fA, 9'*'Ma:;;;.5*I.«;1oc§; _ _ " petitionerin
}ayanagar,Ban:g3l<3r§:..5€§{}!;}.1 Crl.P1487,f04
(By Shankaramia_&"' .
And' a M V' 4' "
S.__ s , ' State 5:; Kolar '3ix"<)'1im't« Egiica
%K%SBaaava«ras§yé?ym
' Ciowiipaete
i:1o1':.«r W Respondents
H (By Sri for R1;
-. B R Nanjundaiah, Sr. counsel for
_ ':'Sri 'i':',L N1F':n1jatt:asi1ivayya, Adv. for R2)
V _ " "ihasc Criminal Petitions are fiied under 3.422 of the c:;~.pc: praying
mg set..aside the order of taking cognizamze zmé issuance of nombailabie
' svaiirant against the petitisnass. .
Cnnm' ' at Pam ' us 1435 / 2004},-2ss:< ..:4z:7 ;i42j1§é-:__
I-«.)
These Ctiminai Petitions coming on far Grders this 6.23,"
made the following:
ORDER
Since these patiiiens arisa out of a coticxnoI§'Tcemp1é&nt;~ they iafiiaiéién up togsther for disposal. Petitioneri %.--,afu*e sfiugjit fer' céf §:1e* pmeeedéngs in cc 52952003 before the Eélgiar 3:56 .3155 to sfe: aside the order of taking cognizance afid.._i§§;uan;§e rick:-{baiiahk wmratnt against the petitieners for the ofi°enc_e 1mderS.3:O2,21'3:l? .;>,o2":%;a}'1:é§}w:é3, IPC. A cotnpiaintv®i*;:gL:V1"fiied§:__by§er§é K. S against the son cf Badrinat11 ézmi aiiv:-rév rntirder of the comp§ainant's son in the house of Ba¢'iAriza§:'€1x~ 25}; policaz, after investigation, filed a V chargegheéi pnly Vag;.ri1;_isLt I<Car£Exik;' accused 1 who is a juveniie offeneier , Bf1"$p0t'€z in respect cf Szinath ~» petitioner in Cr}. P 2ZAE4»8:"'!;gC¥f')}i1 ?;:harge sheet also the name cf Srinath was not found Homréxrsr, subs-effigiséizt to the ffiing of tha charge shes: before tha Chiéf "«.__V3'ud;'ciai hiag,§§H'ate. Koiar, a Private Compiaint was filed by the complainant V' .. z<.--<$wsAgé;j:"IF< 13.6.2Gfi3 ereafier, the learned Magistrate afier havizrzg takan 2?
_<:egii;zance, rcmrdcd the swam statement ef ftmr witnesses and issued _' Lprocess against the petitirmers against Which, pezzéioners have fiiecl revisinn befere the Add}. Sessions Judge, Kelar. The Adciitienai Sessisns Judge has /' Y"
rejected the case on merits by avrder dated 16.4.2604. it appears the petitioners have filed these two peiitiims.
Heard the caramel for the petitioners and Sri learned Sr. Counsel fer the respondent. I ' _: _ ._ . ¢ It is the submission of the petitioneiii cajuxashl Sri S}'€_»'éi'I':3i£i!'£Vfi;:1%§.,if«-'?.'tj'!€ teamed Magistrate taking cegnizance <':::3__the ixasie of the f}irixs;:teVVeei11piaL1f:
filed and ordering issuance of process ie'w.i:thm_1t jtirisdécfien afid also taking cognizance aghast these twé pe{:":iQnu%;s ;,;z:emats.Vte'd5ubie jeopardy. cmstreg ef the Senior Caunsel that the Magistrate «}1:aas4_g:3~i: }ufisdi§;iioz: pxivaic complaints and there is no i11eg;;l.§fyV1;r.izregui'a.*i§Vt_:j} end fine very act of the Magiskate does not meant to A V in the case, it is 130 be seen the fixing ef jurisdiction is a matter Hof eonvémiealce. Learned CIM has entertained the chsege sheet fried and he cognizance, has mken cognizance only against the 1" accused ' the son 5:" Badrinath since use charge sheet was fileé against the ether two accused. Hewever, based on the swam siatement and the statement af other AW' 1126: private complaint filed, aficr having fcilowed the furn1alities;jhx%é§f'd§f%s;:§1y taken aegaizance which does net call for interference. Itfix.1'}:'i'<3r: 'i.*1é peti£ioners to take steps at the appropriate §ta.ge_._ "I'§1_efé"Es" ::i{;.fré£:ri£ $hé V' » contention of {he petiiioncrs.
Bofli the petitions are accordin ';z.,yciisxniss:é<i.-. . V V"
judge