Sri Karanam Lakshmipathi vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 March, 2010

[Cites 2, Cited by 1]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Karanam Lakshmipathi vs The State Of Karnataka on 26 March, 2010

Bench: Ajit J Gunjal

1 W.F'.792€L-2010

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKAL BANGALORE 
OATED was THE 25*' DAY OF AIIARCR 201   
BEFORE A' 

THE HONBLE E\/IRJUSTICE AJIT 3 OI.J_rsI.j'AL',L'    

WRIT PETITION NO: 7920,:'§@_(') ICAA;R'OLICA.E'I'%T  %

BETWEEN:

 A2. CIRECTOR'&3ETxIERAL OF POLICE

SRI KARANAM LAKSHI\!§iP.;/5ITH!.7' 

S./O LATE MARAOEV RILLAI; ' A

AGED ABOUT. SQYEAFRSL    I
FLAT NO.5O_3}.LRQ"VA'--~RE3-'DEN53'V' 
MAIN ROAD,      

SEC UNDE RA..AjI3AIj:'; T50oT~oCT=o  
AI\IOII'RA RRACCEASRVI    
I - I ...PETlTiOE\JER

(By Sri.MAHES"HI :3.c§vOc:e1T"éA) I  
AAIO:   V A'   '
  ,A THE sTATE"OT-" KARNATAKA

 DE_P'A§%'T_,_fV1E¥'~éT"QF ROME
'xil'D.HAVNA'_~»S_OIL)'E)HAL BANGALORE.

  T<AR;\IAT':AI<A STATE
*  ?».'FZ.L_JP!\THUNC3A ROAD
= LRAAII;:3ALORE

 



2 W.PL?'92G;'2O1O

CENTRAL BUREAU OF l¥\J\/ESTlGATiON
BELLARY ROAD
BANGALORE

SR! T S SUDESH SXO T G SESHADRI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS.   
OCC: INDDSTNTALTST   2
N096. 22"?' CROSS. JUDiCiAL LAYOUT, '
GKVK POST, YELAHANKA, BA1\%QALGF§E'.

AND ALSO AT: H\|DiA FLEXiB§_ES",f 
N01, RJNG ROAD   U 
MARUTHINAGAR. RMV--!..|_fSTA_GEV-.V,  
NAGASHETTY MALLY,    "
BANGALORE --«~«SE3_O 094,. A   

SR: T S      " 
8/0 T G SESH;'\_DR'%~1'_V__   _   
WA 134, 23"'?_"A_" ;~:'§F%O:'3S§ ;OD[C;IAL; LAYOUT

GKVK POST BANGALORE
AND    ,'  

'ATNTEL_TEcH~NNOLOG|E.SINDIA PVT LTD"
AS SOFTWARE ENGINEER, CUBBON ROAD,

 "  BAi"'-EGALQRVE. -- 5S0'DD1'

 GLSONLLST GfS}~: EA'SHA,DR:

S:<O LATE TAB -GOVINDARAJ
AGED AVBO!L}j*."'?5 YEARS

 =  .L,W,-'QB G'"S¥~tESHADR#
'  "'--AG_ED_«ABOUT 70 YEARS

 



3 W.F'.792O.-T2010

RESPONDENTS e & 7 RESTOTNO AT

NO.13l<1, 23"" "A" CROSS JUDICIAL LAYOUT GKVK POST, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE (By srt.:\2AREt\:ORA PRAS/i\D. HCGP) REsR%O'NV:OEt\:lTS'%%< Mt "

THIS v\/RTT PETlTlON IS F-"ELED_UI\§D«EE?'t"':5'=RT|f3i;;E§§2A26':j & 227 OF THE OOHSTTTUTTON OF*~~E_NDlA .Pt3t.AY'-ENG DIRECT THE OENTRAL BUREAU O'E..,tNvEsT:GA'T:'ON; TO INVESTIGATE INTO THE DEATH V.Gé*--.'THE-»tTPETtTtOt\§.EFt'S DAUGHTER LATE T.S.MADl~?{URt_ é_}_i,'";'3,LJ»E3't\/1§T REPORT ACCORDINGLY. Lt THIS wRtT .,T>ETtTftON COM-ENG ON EOR PRELHWNARY HEFi_fR§f\jAG_.THtS1,DAY_[TTHE'"€OURT MAOE THE FOLLOWtNG:?

Sri.§\J'a_:vendté1"~VPi'as;1d{'--._iVeétrned Government Pieader a.¢O'ept$ rt-Otice:--t.Or ~.rE>spOnd'ET*;Ta'i"nO.1 . "t.-.__«TVnO"_"petiT§'t'O}aeT33 daughter met with an Uﬂﬂéliiiféit V73__death. OEUsé'"'VOt the petitioner is that his daughter One .1 law graduate also enrotied as an Advocate at V."»v.":..}\tTd.'tTrET':ﬁrtddesh Bar Council. She was married to the 4"' ./ 3 Procediire fer imrestigatidn. Atter due ir'iveetigatidr'i§ a 4 W.P.7920:'2OEO respondent and she was residing with the 4"' respondent and-.,_ his famiiy members. During their wedlock: two daugiitersépyiiereiéitj'2:."2 born. It is the ease of the petitioners that his daugi"It€3i'r«':%;t|V\'£iitt:g:"

used to inform the petitioner that the family members were harassing her to briing__ it appears, the Detitioner tried to mee't'rri1i:.3:4§iti.ti'ieh"d€{7éEi~nd':» it respondent Nos. 4 to 7. On Vreceived a Catt that his daughter had riouse in Saniayanagar. tndeed;:th.'is a«.s:irio_'ek_._t_oT'the petitioner and they did not betiefirethe---s.aji'd:i7rntormtatiQrt: Accerdiiwg ie the petitioner, natured. bold brave and enthusiastic advocate. it appears, a eo_mptaint"t_;}iiras. Iodg'ed_V_,Tbut:: however the same was not the petitioner tited a private corripiaint before iiegiiiistrate trrider Section 200 of the Code ot VV'.'«:t?,'rir--ifiinai arid the same was referred to the .1 -Tt':vLJVFt.S:di,:C'3TiE}tTtf,f1l police under Section t56(3) of the Code of ii'A"""exoeptiot;rat circurrtstances exist for reletring the investigation to '€3.AB.t. i*t._l_s atso to be noticed that the incident has taken u%'a_<':'e_ Lift _{t'?t£}2.2{){13 tittte over 07 at thts saint of 6 W.F't7":320f20lO materials were not considered. He further submits that this is lit case where the investigation is required to be entru$1.9d»ilo~"tI"~sW.

C.B.l.

4. Sri.t\§arendra Prasad, learned Govterntheitaati it sabreits that an opportunity was reser\red..to the oetttionV'er~~.ir'tt.,thVe_§ earlier criminal 'petition to approaohﬂthe "Court "«belAoi/Ari for appropriate relief.

5. l the the Apex Coart has ruled Courts to refer the matter tdalhe But. however. that is required to beidonue in and not as a matter of routine in,xaestig.ations'a.re reqtuired to be entrusted to OBI.

- view that this is not a case where such reporteai ?22 has ruled that even the Coerts V7?1_can direct""suo§horto further investigation of the matter. it is .1t'oe;><traet the opservatioee made by the Apex Court as 7 'v'V.P.792{)4='2OtO time. the question of referring the matter to the C.B.§. for farther"--._ ihvestigation does hot arise.

7. But. however. if the petitioner l_s:...ap_prelj:e'riS'i'ir§thatVii,' the irivestigation done by CCB or by CODZZIS not it is aiways open for the petitioner'Vt_o"~~...rhalrer- application under Section 173(8) otu_...rhAe:._Gooe..o'i*Crirninai Procedure. t973. indeed. under '-the Code of Criminal Procedure. noi.h'in.g «ipeiioeeoied to preclude further ianoittence after a report ureter"'eiutb--r»se;:tio'r*tfi-:"i2i'».has be'e-rr: torwardeo to the Magistrate.

8. "gilhdreed, Apex Court ih the case of wt/s- State of Gujarat and others (N) fig scope gt Section"'ti*-?8('8_) of the Code of Criminal 'Procectt.rre,f,'We make this observation only to H re'i't--erate«trt.is position in law so that no doubts that ttla__C'trnpugned order of the High Court oteating " prirnarity with thi's aspect cannot he sustainaa' 8 W.P7920;'201O "This position is so obvious that no discussion of the point is necessary. However, we may add that this position has never been ctoubtectw in similar cases deatt with by this Court, lt it made clear by this Court in the very first namety, Vinaet narain -vs-- Union lrvttétai 1 Ala scvv 2835) that once a charge .§i:.eér_ié fllectmttt -. the competent Court after v»C.:vO:'l?itt;)l€'ttC.)'i7V_' of' investigation, the process of yrn:o'nitoring .by'«::tl7:lS W} Court' for the purpose ot..4rit%at<i'r.i:/g and other investigative agencies cor-tcerntecti pert':l_rjrn'_'_.their function of _atinvesti'g£:?tingCC_";intoi'«~./,C'theV' iottences coricafttect' cf?t'ites":i?io'--aireno' arts?-'tt7eraattar. it is only the CourtV"inf-i<ytttch*--t.ti7a 'chargesheet is fiteo' which is tooleat witt't"aﬂittatters relating to the trial of the~accus'edVAirictuctingirnatters failing within the in 'any ,._;}u'a,r:f'er may survive. it is. therefore. clear dh 9 W.P7920.='20lO its the circumstances, it the first relief seeking a direction...___ of the Court to entrust the investigation to C i cannot granted. The only course open to the petitioner Section 373(8) of the Code of Criminat Pro-c:e'du:e.ﬂ foiiowihgz I I V i 'H it it onosaﬂ}, Liberty is reserved*'t.o tneA..ipeti%t':gn'ie»:_gto We an application under of Criminal Procedtirieﬁtor On such applicsitiiorL:i_*«..br§i'n'g._ Sessioas Judge snail désposeﬂxot the material on record. ' é ' A L4 V Petiti o rt sta{}ds"'ti isoosed Qt cortjiag ly. Prfa.sad:,4vA'G_oyernrnent P leader is pe;:}'r.2gl_tted toggaxepearartce within four sat"

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court