I Sudarshan Prasad vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 July, 2009

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

I Sudarshan Prasad vs The State Of Karnataka on 13 July, 2009

Bench: Manjula Chellur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT 

DATED THIS THE 13"" DAY oI= JULY
p BEFORE 
THE HON'BLE MRs..IusTIce MANJuI.A"c:-IE

CRIMINAL PETITION INO.>342;4i20i)S 

BETWEEN:

 m

 f   (§Y SRLPADMANABHA MAHALE. SR.COU
 Mzs.c;ouTHAM s. RAJESHWAR. Am/s.)

MR. LSUDARSHAN PRASAB~.._'   -
SIO.LATE LBHAVANI SHAN%€AR.RAO
AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS f _  I  
occ: SENIOR ENGEM'-;ER'--{CIV. ,"L)"N P-GL.
PRESENTELY AT 'SURIQKS-HA' I F-'LGQR 
KODIALGUTTA EAs.T-~---,fA - : 
KODlALBA£E.."E?C3ST=:_ I   *
MANGAL_C'RE§575003.  k  g

1.

.MR.M.M.'$H'i":'i':IY   
s:o.3;IvI.sIiIETT*r*  I 
AGED _ABOUT--«.6_1'VYEAR$_ % I
occzg cowsuu AN1} NPCL.
mo. 'F?_ANCHAJANf*'.'A*'<«. I
099: BAI.,Ie.A S-IJPERMARKET
<2:-.I==II<AI3 Rom. BEJAI,
M.ANGALORE'~5?5004

- --.$:VlVI'I'>vA.I'A»'.,'\I*lIA:,i"A\__'AKU!IIlARI snmov,
I.D'.€3,..M.,,S'ARVGTHAM PAI.

 I URGES ABGIJT 59 YEARS

. ' QCCI. SPE-.vL'3lAL LAND ACQWSITION OFFICER.
KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
QEVELOPMENT BOARD

  I. , KEADB INDUSTRIAL AREA.
~ . BIMKAMPADY

V.-In
In

ANGALORE-57501 1
..PETlTl0N.ERS

NSEL FOR

!..'i;lV.:If'§..V  %  u



AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY PA£3UB¥DRl POLECE STATION
UD§JP¥ TALUK & DESTRECT

2. MR.OD! MUGGERA  T
SIOLATE THANEYA MOGGERA-A  O 
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, _  
occ: COOLIE O 1  %
RiO.THAJE, YELLUR V|!..LAGE%,»

UDUP¥ TALUK & D:$TR:cT__  

  _   ""'f'~.:'-MRESPONDENTS

(BY SRl.B.R.S.BHAT, HCGP FORJRJ SR£.K.CHANDRA_NATHAMRICS-A',-A§:)V. 'r;oR»R.2) THI$'CR4!_£Vi*£?é§§.L' F?_E';..T¥T!VON"i,$ FELED UNDER SECTION 482 CR{P,C«ii___;»'TO" 'QVUAS_H"" ALL PROCEEDINGS m cR.NQ..s2/2695 V-FILE'-OEVSPECEAL AND SESSEONS Jums, uDLIr;%=>: CZOMMENCES ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAI-NT. E3:5;?ED, '2O.1;e2oo5 LOGGED av THE 2""

RESPONDENT". 'i=fzR»~"No.s2i2oo5 BY THE 13* RESPONEJENT Pc:Li::£%._% OO_;O"w%s C$~?v.¥wEV\}!O£l'»iﬁ\:L PETITION COMENG ow FOR HEATR¥:§*££3 TH¥S DFﬁ";'THE COURT MAQE THE FOLLOWING:

Q.B..D_§.B O' ..He:afc§ the teamed counsei for the petitioners so also éVhé=§_eai§1ed counsel for the 2"" respendent and the Eeamad 'Lf='ov"ern:nent Pieader.

2. This petition is presented by three petitiono:rso.who are arraigned as accused in Cr.No.82l20D5 on of 2"" respondent, dated 21.8.2005.

3. The contents of thepetition 'aIso';na ».Anne:r(e.re'e,e are perused.

4. On going throirgh " and 2"' petitioners are the .--~«:.o'ff«'.j'V_~iiiegarjuna Power Corﬁoration and the 3"' petitioner Officer. working for Karnetake -!nVdostriei~A'reesv-Deveiopment Board at Mangaiore (for shcwthe Kmoef). it it Sf 'fire. geneeis for this complaint seems to be 'eocfVi§ie:§.ti:on" ofciiertain lands by the KIADB. Mangaioro, for the piurc-ose~ ofiesitablishment of NPCL, in the said area where are ¥ands"..V__e~re acquired. in this connection, when an .4\drri'inistrative Office seems to have been set up by the V' i%3PCL, some complaint came to be iodged by the Panchayath concerned, contending that the Administrative Buiiding Biocir was put up on Sy.l\io.253l5A without obtaining necessary license from the concerned Panchayath. In this counnection.

there was correspondence between the Panche§ath_;V:-~.KViAQB_V and other Revenue Heads of the "--:Distri:,::fs';V.eth- Ultimately. the concerned authority wrote a letter to the Deputy «Contmissicner; 'As£§ietent"e Commissioner and Taheildar.e'el§in§_then1._n§tto ctenzolish the building. even if it wa$'~c'ons«tructed;._irrithout euchlflicense, as no such license was necee§u'a'r'y.c:;i's:V ti1.e_:Vl'axnf;llns__'_'.rivere acquired by the KIADB. :He§i:ever;;A'trrel the approval of license whether such a license was requir.e?o'i§to "the"l°anchayath before putting up such * yélnjrway, this putting up of an Administfat_ive.vBlccl{'eeehie to have kindled the feeling of ﬁre locaijlitieie who'Se..V:len_qs seems to have been aeqnired and there some support from the busy bodies of that area as A .w'ei_lV_.1as4c'e.,n'te.rid'ed in the correspondence between ﬂue NPCL. Kl}%D8.--.ancithAe Revenue Officials. when image stood as it is, itteisiiniaticed eat on the some by an commrs reprlesentaﬁve so atso KIADB. rwuested the command gioiice to give protection to the officiaie when suwey work had to be conducted, which is part of the acquisition. They anticipated obstructions and even physical violence from the occupants of the tends, therefore such protection was asked and the same was accorded.

6. As a matter of fact. in M.M.Shetty. one of the empioyeses-,__'of complaint on 20.8.2005 contendirﬁ-:that"wtienrthe aiong with his officials wenE'0V_te._V.an area calio'd1.iIj(oiactrur in-"

Yeilur vitlage. at about 10.00 «iﬁvltpevrsons i.e. accused and otherse.._"V:i'ncEL't_dir;_g.0'. "thLe'A"0'~C§ram Panchayath members. forming unIAas_arfi.;:.'Van intention of committing enté.re£1_ttte.jedtn'in'ietretive office and took away:V?Rs.650!},t'a'pa:rt ""dantaging the Tape-Recorder and other iterrzsf * VAcco'ro'§ng:"'§o'him. one Vinay Kurnar Sorake is oehifno the unl'a\:r(§u§ aesembiy instigating the assembly to do e.=x:c't; otniteonfawful act. Based on this complaint Iodged at I e:0io'<f;_:.Vrrt Cr.No.81I2005 came to be registered 1 \i eg'a.inst__*1'1-oeersons and others. However, we do not ﬁnd the name" 2"" respondent Odi Muggera as one of the 11 ' e?'c.::tt$ed and we do not know who are the other accused as of get, in Cr.NO.81£2005.

7. In C:.No.82/2005, the complaint came to bejfodged on 22.a.2oo5 at about 4.00 PM on the come:.a%.i;§.tte$ei:2?"

respondent against these three petitionersMelieeiltg-thett' 10.8.2005, in the afternoon, the e'ooHus'e-do assistance of 10 to 15 people, tre'e.pee_eed forming untawful essembty end.:'?:'epproeched--the e'e:hi;3Ee'inant.V' That aeart, complainavmewas_.s.:z7:e§gg*fLiii3!_.!ifte§f' 'fromVthat place atorzg with others and and then left.

when he retgrr}_e<§,_'horr§e'.Vheiitgifttj' net. trvife and chitdfen and Ultimateiy, he found piece. According to the - wife, the present petitioners threeteféed4'theﬁ1"V§éith'A'd.t§e----'..eohsequences if they do not agree to v;:c*et;e the hooee iméeeeiateiy, and therefore. they vacated, es"'t"theE*}3et'i'ti.oners were to a hurry to conduct their survey %e~ior§:;' "

"8_;V._h3As on 22.8.2005, theze were two compteinte todged he§e_"'{?r.Ne.81£2805 and C:'§.No.82l2€}95 one against the t' eteneheyeth members and other viliagers and the other egaénet these three petitioners ie. two offéoiais from NPCL and orze from KEADB.

9. A careful perusal of the complaint in Cr.No.82I2005 would indicate that the alleged incident or offence tookyplece on 10.8.2005 and by next afternoon, he was ab!ei..to44'rh':e'et.;' wife and children at Karkala. At any cost, b3r_t'2.;:.8;2'r3{l'.5."th-iel so-called offence against the co:hpla'ir.antii_anttfiteterrhily. members was done, at the instance Aof__tilr-ace three 'petiti'on"e're.' It is not the case of the cornpitezinanthyhthapt .;.lléllIVVAV'Eti'reetened"' them with dire consequences.&,lf"t'sei_were_to lodge e-'complaint and therefore rm 22.8.2uC)'0'?.>f_'h"ee._<i:s»¢';iv up his nerves to lodge a complaint; if had happened on 1o.a.2o_o5}e tn«.=.e;Ltp;?:o:;;1p:aiei:%anVt'tried to wait til! the compleint came to be lodged.

After he lodged at the tnstance of 2""

petitions: -l9l.M.S1h:etty,x:in. are afternoon this Cr.No.82I2005 :'wae" 2"' respondent. The very correspondence petitioners indicate that they were apprehehclihﬁ hall along obstruction, violence from the iocat of survey number which was acquired and :"'".epprehendlng all such obstacles while conducting the survey, . had approached me concern-ed authoriﬁcs seeking police protection. Having regard to this background. it week! only indicate that as a countertetast to Cr..No.81I2005, Cr.No.82i2005 came to be registered at the instan¢é.:§!.V_2""

respondent.

10. Under that quashw on ma ﬁie oi Padubidfi Po ¥is§ $tati'q:§;. Map! Mangaiore.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court