Smt. Zarin Taj vs State Of Karnataka on 22 March, 2016

[Cites 6, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Smt. Zarin Taj vs State Of Karnataka on 22 March, 2016

Bench: A.V.Chandrashekara

                        1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF MARCH 2016

                     BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA


CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.426/2016

BETWEEN:

SMT. ZARIN TAJ
W/O SYED SIRAJ
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/O 9TH CROSS
P.H.COLONY
BOMBAY BUILDING ROAD
TUMKUR-572101
                                   ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAMESH K R, ADV.)

AND

1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      TILAK PARK POLICE
      TILAK PARK POLICE STATION,
      GANDHINAGAR
      TUMKUR 572 101

2.    KAISER @ ANSAR AHAMED
      S/O JAFFAR MOHIDDIN
      AGED: MAJOR

3.    RIHANA
      D/O JAFFAR MOHIDDIN
                          2


     AGED: MAJOR

     RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE
     R/O 2ND CROSS, EDGA MOHALLA,
     TUMKUR 572102

4.   SYED JILAN
     S/O SYED NAZIR,
     AGED: MAJOR
     R/O 1ST BLOCK,
     DODDAPETE
     CHITRADURGA

5.   SAYIDA MUBINA
     W/O SYED JULAN
     AGED: MAJOR R/O 2ND CROSS,
     EDGA MOHALLA
     TUMKUR
                               ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S.RACHAIAH, HCGP)

     CRL.RP FILED U/S.397 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.01.2016
PASSED BY THE IV ADDL. DIST. AND S.J., TUMKUR ON
I.A.NO.3 IN O.S.NO.280/2012.

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                     ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP.

2. Present revision petition is filed challenging the order dated 25.1.2016 passed on I.A.3 filed under Section 225 of Cr.P.C. in S.C.280/2012 on the file of Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur.

3. Accused Nos.1 to 3, who are respondent Nos.2 to 4 herein had filed an application I.A.3 before the Prl. District and Sessions Judge, Tumkur in S.C.280/2012 requesting the court to direct the Public Prosecutor to conduct the trial. The said application was allowed on 25.1.2016 and the Public Prosecutor was directed to conduct trial. It is this order which is called in question by the complainant-victim in the present revision petition.

4. Jurisdictional police had filed FIR 164/2002 against respondent Nos.2 to 4 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 306, 511 of IPC. The said case came to be registered on the basis of the first information lodged by Smt.Syed Yasmeen. After concluding 4 investigation, the jurisdictional police filed "B" report against the accused persons and the said "B" report was accepted by the Court.

5. Thereafter, Smt.Syed Yasmeen challenged the said "B" report by way of filing protest petition and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the said protest petition filed by the complainant and issued summons to the accused. Thereafter, the accused persons preferred Crl.R.P.5661/2006 and 2880/2006 and the said petitions were allowed by this Court and order dated 18.1.2006 passed by the learned Magistrate was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial court to proceed in accordance with law granting liberty to the complainant to file protest petition by way of complaint.

6. Thereafter, the complainant appeared before the learned Magistrate and filed the protest petition on 10.5.2010. Since the complainant had given different version in the protest petition filed subsequently by way 5 of complaint, the learned Magistrate committed the case to the Court of Sessions and summons were issued to the accused persons and they appeared before the Court. During the pendency of the said proceedings, accused had requested the Court to direct the Public Prosecutor to conduct trial.

7. Section 209 of Cr.P.C. mandates that when a case is instituted on police report or otherwise, the learned Magistrate should commit the case to the court of Sessions.

8. In this view of the matter, Section 225 of Cr.P.C. has to be mandatorily followed and therefore, the learned Magistrate has directed the Public Prosecutor to conduct trial. The order in question does not in any way affect the right of the complainant or the petitioner in any way. Therefore, the order in question comes within the purview of legal inhibition of Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. Hence, the petition is not maintainable. 6

9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

10. At the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner, registry to return the papers to the learned counsel for the petitioner to enable him to file petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C.

Sd/-

JUDGE DM

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court