D V Satyanarayana vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 September, 2016

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

D V Satyanarayana vs The State Of Karnataka on 14 September, 2016

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

                              1




        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT
                     BENGALURU

     DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2016

                          BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY

          CRIMINAL PETITION No.6172 OF 2016

BETWEEN:

D.V.Satyanarayana,
Son of Late D. Vittalsa,
Aged 71 years,
Occupation: Retired Government
Official, No.536,
2nd A Cross, 6th Main,
3rd Block, Basaveshwarnagar,
Bangalore - 560 079.
                                        ...PETITIONER

(By Shri Chandramouli H.S., Advocate)

AND:

1.     The State of Karnataka,
       By the police of
       Bangalore Metropolitan Task
       Force, Bangalore City.
       Represented by the
       State Public Prosecutor,
       High Court of Karnataka,
                                2




      Ambedkar Veedhi,
      Bengaluru - 560 001.

2.    Manjunath Prasad,
      Commissioner,
      Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara
      Palike, N.R.Square,
      Bengaluru - 560 002.
                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(By Shri K.R.Keshav Murthy, State Public Prosecutor-II for
Respondent/State)
                        *****

      This Criminal Petition filed under Section 482 code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to quash the FIR in Crime
No.103/2016 on the file of the respondent No.1/BMTF Police
Station, Bangalore registered for the offence punishable under
Sections 192(A) and (B) of KLR Act, Section 436(A) of KMC
Act and Sections 217, 432, 434, 441, 427 and 420 of IPC (now
pending on the file of Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,
Bengaluru) in so far as the petitioner is concerned.

      This Criminal Petition coming on for Admission this day,
the court made the following:

                          ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. The petitioner claims to have retired from service 13 years ago and now he has been foisted with a case of having illegally sanctioned a building plan with which he had nothing 3 to do. According to the petitioner, he was not the sanctioning authority and had no role to play in the sanction of the building plan. The role that he was assigned was to ensure that the building that was ultimately constructed was in accordance with the sanctioned plan and to make a report in that regard. He was not in any way involved in sanctioning any building plan or in issuing the occupation certificate after inspection.

3. The learned State Public Prosecutor, on an examination of the record, would express that it is for the petitioner to clear the air and it is for this reason that he is required for interrogation. If the petitioner should co-operate in the investigation, there is no threat of arrest and possibly the prosecution could even be dropped against the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner is directed to appear before the competent authority - Sub-Inspector of Police, Bangalore Metropolitan Task Force, Bangalore, at 10.30 a.m. on 16.09.2016.

The petitioner however shall not be arrested in the meanwhile, on such appearance.

A copy of this order shall be furnished to the learned State Public Prosecutor.

Sd/-

JUDGE KS

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court