Karnataka High Court
R Surendrababu vs State Of Karnataka on 8 July, 2010
Author: Subhash B.Adi
Bench: Subhash B.Adi
I IN THE HIGH coum" or KARNATAKA AT DATED 'mm THE 3*" DAY or JULY 26 % BEFORE THE I-lC>N'BLE MR. JUSTICE ;
R.5uf3\r¥d?'aD33..E-?*-* S15 sn Aged about 40 years, T' Rial: Nc.49--__ -
19*" J VCross,"¥.agga.da£ap2ura Sir C.?%{.Rarrsanna«gar Past Barpgalasva -560 093."
psrmcmen (cmvsmm _ (ByAM:r.A1;NJiat§ha Krishna, Advocate) T%state~or Kamataka , _ ffiyssadashlvanagar Felice ' A Qkaplmnmd by ..*'!'he Smte Pubiic Presecutor High Court Bulldings % Bangalare.
...REs:=c>m;>Em' we CRL.P.N 0.132/2519) (By Sr! B.Baiai<rlshna, HCGP) AND:
State ef Karnataka By High Grounds Poiice Represented by The State Pubiic Prosecutor _ High Court Buildings ' mngaiore.
ffi%...ii1Esificmiij5isiT i;'CFiLv;-?.,V_ .NiE),133 OF 2010) (By Sri Bflaiakrlshna, Th * High Ceuit.£jwerri'nien_§.:P|¢a¢_:g_;f)- ' Crim|¥_1_ai*-.. 44P€ji_j_|!;ion'j_~ _i'\i9_..132[2G10"" is filed imcier Sectian:i48__2_A to Hiquash ma proceedings in c.c.No,s5a9/ziaiiiaeiihhitiie file cif VII Addi. CMM, Bangaigsre. ., V ii&ié:ri:i&iinaii% pei:itii':ii Na.133/2010 is filed under 2' i?T'..C. praying to quash the gzreceedings in.'C_iC.N<§,i{3V1.A.S5f2009 on the me of VIII Addi. CMM, ' 'V_Ba:1gé!;3i°aV.
_ .. Vii_.Th"ese petitions coming on for admission this the Court made ti1efoiiowing:- _ QBQEE Petitioners in both the petitians have called in question the proceedings in Crime No.16/2m? cf 3 Sadashivanagar Police Station and in Crime No. 7372009 of High Grnunds Police Station for the offence under Section 3 of the Kamatraka Span Places (Prevention':"*.nf Disfgurement) Act, 1981
2. Heard both sides.
3. Learned counsel for the pétil:i¢ner sii'i2n1'ité the nfience alleged against the"'p+§fitioner"undn%' 3 of the Act, is non- cognfiable fig poiiizé have no jurisdiction to investigate affine pa:-mission from thiié Magistrate in consonants with main i15s(2)'ielf;the~li¢"r.P.-c. gfneiilleffginée liundsr Section 3 of the Act is viitli imniinonment for six months or fine or pointed out by tbs learned counsel for ti1eApi¢:titi;§nei§F'the police have no jurisdiction to inumtigatae ' Vniafbert; This aspect of the rnatter has not been looked A the learned Magistrate while taking cognizance of _ i :'_':Vl.:i1-ni offence. Considerin the same, I find that the l «proceedings in C.C.No.8689f20£39 and C.C.Nra.10155l2009 on the fiie of VI! Addi. C.M.M., Bangalore, are to be quashed.
5. Accordingly, these petitions am ailowqiijw. proceedings in C.C.No.8689/ZW9 mi c.c.No.1§1ss,I2eo9«%%T on the me of V2: Addi. C.M.M., aajngamg, h-Va}_I"eby ". quashed. However, the compiainafi lih e_fi§y».hn actkan in conscnance with 5ecVti'c§L1fV"'155(i)'r;f Msu _ . _