M Mallan vs State Of Karnataka By Its Additional ... on 8 April, 2008

[Cites 13, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

M Mallan vs State Of Karnataka By Its Additional ... on 8 April, 2008

Bench: A.S.Bopanna

IN THE HIGH coum' op KARNATAKA AT   é '

DATED THIS THE 3'"! DAY~oII--.a.PRI]_L     V

BEFORE  _
THE HON'BLE MR. .I D$'I*I_QE ﬂ"S__BO?}I1N!¢.§""' 

% INRIT PET!T!Q!\_!  (....|.I!¥1+'~'IL'!.'!..-!',.'A.'.'.§'=I".:}
. CIW _ . ,'

urn nl:vnImtn1t"~I;:n ca;-1 1?. in:\'rEn"~ than urn n-In-:n

Vin run I I nun! n4L._va¢mLf JV.;']'-;i\lU-E.i..'{~.'>bVI'iV'l'_'Vl'\..l'l4l'..a'I1'aj

-no um. um; -I':-cg nga. V  ..

BETWEEN :  

MMALLAN    ' '  
s/0 LATE--DANDAPms,II_  ._
AGED ABOUT :sEYEI;RE _  .
STONE+.CU'§'T'ER EERRQFEEEIQII -
R/0 I MAIN.«II CROSS} _   
RAJENDRA~NA('xAR"-- " . 
BANGALORE: 'V -

5' " I   PETITIONER

% ' I (l3jr'D'*§I-i  DI.h,IAKAl§.Klf)V.|

  

1 STATE OF' KARNATAKA
I B'! ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
'   HOME as TRANSPORT DEPT
 VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001

DIRECTOR GEHERAL 65 INSPECIDR

GENERAL OF POLICE
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS

L

n
at



N02. NRUPTHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE~560 001

3 commsszonmn or POLICE
1, INFANTRY ROAD   
BANGALORE-560 oox U '

5 POLICE INSPECTOR  
SANJAYNAGAR POLICE emjxon  "
BANGALORE-560 U94   U .

6 s KRIS-H_NAMUR'!'H_Y  
FATHER'S NAME NOTAKNUWN  U V 

Due?-c'1'os:  &  ~..E!.~!Er-:.A'.L OF
PRISON-S, SHESHADRlI.R0Av'D' 2-' '

Ba~..ur..=.n:1.-01233.9-i.=6.o%UUU'~vV U    
RESIDINGUAT'KEBi_COLOElY,4VSAI§fJAYN;%GAR

3A9zc+.Lo1=:g;=L~5o.924  

P c maumrnwi-3.9..-:."22.0  

7 "v .  
CI'IXARM'ED.:8ESERVE "  
ravsa;2:.rsUU4a2o.e. - * 

I'_1'l'.1t'll1('\lﬂ"\.'l1I\'lf'I\£!|
no KL': FVIIUEJIVID

(By am R.B.;?;A'I}HYa§NAf€A?wA..NA amen. I-ICGP FOR

..  ma. R3-R'?-«V _ _

Unagsk, KR1SHNAM'UR'l'HY,PARTY-IN-PERSON FOR R-6
« . A ;~:.R:  mv. 3-"ca R-'ii

*   THzé'UUwErr PE'l'l'Pl0N IS FILED UNDER ARPICLE 226 or»

 C('J§i$'§TTfi"l!"Ti0N CF' iﬁfliﬂ.  A F'F€ﬂ'Y'E'R TO; DIRECT'
'1'!-IE i?,ES.!?0NDEN'PS 1 T0 5 TO REGISTER A CASE OF' MURDER

   ANU 1-mu OVER 'THE in"v1:s'ﬁGAT1oN or' 'T'Hi.S CASE TO THE

   CENTRAL BUREAU ow INVESTIGATION" TO ENSURE FAIR AND

« mPA:m*mL INVESTIGATION; DIRECT R-l- T0 7 TO PAY

 _  'COMPENSATION TO THE DEPENDENTS OF DECEASED
  MURUGAN we is vrcma or- C-OLD-BLODDED MURDER.

J
'3;



mmmum
BETWEEN :

AN-JALI W/0 LATE MURUGAN   

AGED .'-3011'!' 30 YRS

R] O GOVINDASWAMY NAGQR
cu MIEA In an nan M TALUK

IJIILI I'll IIVI II \I l\lI

VILLUPURAM DIST, TAMIL NADU _V V _
NOW 'PE."u€PORARIL'a' R/O 1'3!' H-AK?'-€,L  CRGES 

RAJENDRANAGAR, BANGALORE 

STKTE..Qi5T..K;i\Riiﬁ?l'AKﬁ.O_' ..  

:32  npnmpuas. GHEEFSECRETARY
Iioiviﬁ 2%.:-sii.:r TEAKSOPQR? DF="'I".
VJDHANA E'»'T.7UDHA .. ~ O

   

{-n

'2 r)iRECTOR GE.NERAL AND
; INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
~  KAR NATAKA s'1'A'1':s'.
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS
 _ N012, NRUPATHUNGA Row
'--B_ANCiALQRE 1

3. V H SMJGLMNA
 AGED ﬁBOU'I' 56 YRS
.F'ATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE

AA ._ BANGALORE CITY

-_  NO. 1. INFANPRY ROAD
' BANGALORE1
I



4 POLICE INSPECTOR

%:":}u'J:-'xY:'u'A%R PGLECE """"'""!'!

BANGALORE 94   %
5 s KRIS!-INAMURTHY

aaim asom' 56 ':'RS _
FATHER'S NAME NOT Known .,
aiaacm. UR GE:'v'ERAL 9.1.-49* %z.-.'s..-99....-'*'*-*r.\::=: A A

GENERAL or masons, SHEEHAIJRI ROAD  
R/O K.E.B. COLOP$Y;'~SANJAY§¥£€2§Al§"-«.  'A

I-It-an .'n_n..4

ANGA Ru;-oouua-1 -

6 POLiCE  'Fi.'RiJVa'::"sE»1.'Ax"3vf'_E'-'i'L§.1."Vs..T'.:
MAJOR. :FAT.H'.ER'S:_NA_ME: Nomraowta %
cm    
MYSGRE»R0hi3_V__    '
BANGALQRE. '  H " '
 %%%%  %  . _ %  RESPONDENT8
(By sRf.R.B.8ATEiYFxh:lAI%Ai'§liA amen. HCGP FOR
R-1&2: --  
DR.s."5RR3HNAMURrH?,, PAR'1'Y-IN-PERSON ma R-5
SR1 C.H." .HAnu1s1An*rH:;RAYA. ADV. FOR R-6)

V.  «misVV'wRrr PETITVH %%%%%  1oN rs FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 on

 '   OF INDIA. WITH A PRAYER T0; DIRECT. R1
'  TD. R4 REGISTER A CASE OF' MURDER AND  THE

INV'E31'I(%ﬁ_'9I0~N'OF THIS CASE TO THE CENTRAL BUREAU or
1N.\(Es'1'ICi.A'i':oN To ENSURE - FAIR AND IMPARPIAL
1NVE8'I'iGA'!'iON; DIRECT R3 T0 R6 To PAY COMPENSATION -OF
RUPEESFIVE LAKE-IS To THE PE'I'!'I'l0NER FOR nammme HER

 V' H-USBARD av camno Hm A mcorr. RUBBER, cnmuw.
~  DERECYI' 121  To my 'COMPE.N_8A'HON ow RUPEE8
'r-4:135:17 FIVE uxas To me PE'f'I'I'ION'ER FOR THE manna

OF  !~!U!3B.A!9lD

I

L

1.



These Writ Petitions having been reserved   
coming on for pronouncement this day. the Court p:1::J1ounc--eE...iiie_T V.

following:

2. In   Sri M.Ma1lan
cln:ims___    petitioner in
w.p.Ne.d67i}2en2e %'Ldd  claims to be the wife of
deceased  in the said incident which
 on   In the ﬁn: petition, the petitioner

IiI'«t'Q\I'I:In~'

 '  to   " acaae" ' of:r1inu'""'er am ' " 'nan' " 'ti-ove1"""'

 insdestigtition of the case to  Bureau of

 Inveeiigaaiion ('CBl' for short) to ensure fair and 

  The petitioner has aleo qought In mandamus to

 the respondents to pay compensation to the

I
15



% '1'=PW;'+'-"'3 %°1"% dmwd MI-rusﬁn 1;Wl39  j

petitioner' is a victim ofoold blooded*mmd_er. raj-L§hg%§j     j 

petiiion.%t1z.e peﬁﬂoner seek» for 

._ %mgi_a_»tg:r__a case--of    _

Q: gang: in OBI.    " L'

a1.':«_'_Ip_I.|! 51: wgﬁwv

%'thc'mInt1er___01" 1:;  [2

__%fuu __.'

for defgxiiirgﬁ her hii'ﬁii'1€'i i'u:3r'~%s;wu:ng"'a"'ufsi' 3  

 etc.   mugigt for

    to   
are ~that on thc u:gm.%%.;g%2:a";a:.».2oo;.   sam-

- to   to ?h1§nk  the kitchen door of the

«  "'-=4---%%--§  In  '£4:-.r=e .  

'~._...;-.'!-..'..y._  4.1:: i ﬁat I1'-I:s-..mu-|I'alri1I|1I- an Dixauhnn,  annal-
\ava.w.mn§ unw-

'V-I211

 II'?-Ila ll-I-I-II? "FIJI-R'-I-II CID I-IIIIZWIILIJ

___ inapq_ciI;r'  of Prisons." "i"'nc  ai KEB

  Bangalore. -- One  P.G.Purushotha_m

   other mapond'cnt,_%a  

%   %[C'vns*ahh who was P°_','°d' an 8  the -aid

1
i

I
In



Dr.S.Knshnam' urthy on havm' g heard the noiseof,  

persona attempting to break open the   

the basement of the house attempted   ._

that the door to the    " V L'

nu---,-.v.

ad. 1; Liek E heen__    out and

......;...... u... .....:.1 4.1...- ....;...,..'.......- .. 4 ;,-*.z.. :.__1- _.,.__ 4.1.-

door with a houraer amine'          't mm' 'as 'them,

the said     to attack

Sri Puruv     is said to have ﬁred a o

shot    which hit one of the persons.
The othentivo  the person who was hit by the
bul1:;t.Vtr§v__i_og"'m'V'cli.i'nb over the wall, in ml to have

.   V.   of the wall, who was later identiﬁed'

- 'I1I;T_. -n-cu.

'9

  ten ":3 V' tantra  tell} nnnrnﬂina in H11-_ uni-iﬁnnln-It Inn was

............-......:I .......1I

.1' .._....I -....L:~.¢L........... ..........., a.I..... ..... 1.l............_... ..

  to M.s.ﬁamaiah Hoapitalanci  hewas

 the poatlnortem was conducted on 24.12.2001.

o  ,.._h1'V"'.'.13uhaequently the petitioner was called on 25.12.2001 and

thebodywashandcdover. Thchzciientisaaidtohawbeen

J
)2

'I



reported in the newspapers. The issue had  reieezi i T; 7  '
the learned counsel lbr the  i-hing'  
Director General of Police and   "  

petitioner is said to  ti  on * L'

I J-(IQ!-I can u.--. crown---

.onr.11 in the M' im.e;~  in

1:1__'l£'I_ _ __'I .1." ...... ....

nxcnnuou on Gov i* ""Vp""i""' =i""" 33"" "' """'

haw.
iikciy to come oi.§t--§.f theease fife  the city Folios
since Sri.   of Pohee at that
point   urthy and 1.. 1....
  that it was a case of
pxivate   was a daooit and the
pxeeent    Police as 000 is in friendly terms

 It is in this background, the

" em--e-  sue-a.. the n e n: me' e senezein r__he

   Murugan has suﬁlud" ' injuaﬁoe and proper
_  should be made and appropriate -compensation
 be given to Murugan'.-s wife Smt. Anjali. in the

petition. legal ooninntions with regarcl to private defence

I
43



avmlab' le under the Indian Penal code and the  '

same is also stated. The manner inwhich  K '

occumed is disputed. The pcﬁﬁoh':.hy:.'_Si*iV 

ﬁled on 3.2.2002. 'rheied&cr'i1_ie..%(pciiiiex§ by   *

filed on 18.2.2002.

're 13.: I-I.iI\.4    In-ow!-I, I=I~I-I-Insulin:

'L ;__._   3:- -1-.. _4.._a...._1 A.'I_._J.
 l".l.£.'l.nE'.T 1%. 13 E1180 3 ID". Inlllﬂl.

s'*'"* Tits  1 _ 2

her    had 
her huisiidiid * in his hoiise while he
was    and he did not pay his wages
and that hd'  ..i......a2 at him when he had sought roi-

    " wage "  .9. With iegaid to the incident, it is

   itamc to Bangalore and went to Same' ynagar

     The  

U] wG'i'i'.IiI".¢u\J\uL¢'iCi='i%"'""':" 

E.

  her to  if she did not itecp quiet. Smt. imjaii aiao

  daontends that she went to the house undcr construction

'next to Dr.K1:iahnamurthy's house and met the pardons

3' %*"""'



FF

5  

working in that house. They told her that  u
Mumgan and 15 others were doing    
that house. They also told her  
going to her native village other   dues

 a_nc1   t' V

nnn I'-I-and-I!-(\-Iv  rﬁannr "'6

w.............. 1....  eeiam.
  has     petition.

5. The   its objection
statement_1ie'~   that the my Writ
Pk:-.titioia_ is  or this Court. It is contended
that thetpeieiiioh   similar he the tatement of
the ef   inferences an appeared in the

thin nil. '1-inn in
1 W PM'. W

me...

is

., - 41...." '.~ ..,~:......-|.~.... -...... ..
tn' vie';  ' 'Liv If

4.1.... ___.-:.... _.,:_.1..4.. 1.--; :4. :... .__.
H10; uuacugnuu. uI.II.1I.lﬂIl.l.l

eoeenpiee the Police Clfﬁocra and hiierieiing with

 and prosecution. It is contended that
M fttihe heiitioo is also not maintainahle sinoe the investigation
 __<_:_if the case has been taken up by the Corps Of Detectives

1
12

u
in



('the COD' for short) which is the  M

department of the State of  ~'l'l1I=  V'

petitioner that Sri Purushotham Rep 'jmits _

work as a gunman to   not 

i ad to hnnrlg

.__.___---- --_ :--------u

9

1.. :3 ' n.. -..1...4I.._ as o
"t $131 1" "an u_.uu I-I

oontabie on  process
and he    of 9 months
from    can Head Qum-am
   He has undugonc haining to
ope1*ateA"x=s:su;nlvers'V  and other suns. It 'is
mntsndod   working as a gunman to Sri

%  véiia was the Police  

I-lﬂlilﬁllﬂfﬂ

inter' ' as ""-*-W Ge.-.e:'al and Ir-_.sr.-,c$.r.-r

"nun"-1eral;~ Pr  an--d. S'"i i'--'uii""shotunT: Rao oonﬁniied no Work

for as his gunman. After the zetilexnent of 

V'_A'Reonnasiddaiah, Sri Pumshothmn Rao was posted as

'   to Dr.S.Krishnamurthy along with two other armed

Police Constables viz., Sn' B.Sumsh and Sri K.B.Ravi. It is

I
*3.



stated that the learned counsel for the peueéjmttdie     

individual capacity and as   

memesenlntion dated  

mug mm-,:m_ paints arm _:  '- I +.;»;,~ «teams:-.;sd in A

the petition. The ﬁﬁ   by
the Government and  thevipizxvesﬁgaﬁon had
been handed over to  pooh  General and
Inspector   on 29.12.2001.
The  " is that the
    in not Iefemad to any
person     made based only on the
  of the counsel for the petitioner.
V   'ﬁn --A  inf-n p;mt'-.13 a-.f*..er the m% ham"-.5.

' went prﬁiﬁded the 

as   hieught from 7-amﬁ Nadu by the Ponce' aﬁer the

   ipcideilt-.A':'It is stated that as soon as the crime was mpomad.

  . ju1iadict1onal' Pol1ee' took up investigalzion and

.    as directed by the Director General and Inspector

General of Police. the Investigation has been handed over to

'R b'*'---



the COD which is an independent investigating it "

is discharging' its duties effectively:-without  d it

interference. Since the objection    

it wag. gated  even in 1']1t~i.¢V-:,V:&¢:1_1t of   " it

its ﬁnal me: E: the ,;-..%-_-%~m;...,:..-;o;=ec;~od_o_r:.,    be
questioned by arijroﬁe"   pe'.z"&ula."l_'y', the
petitioner, if tl1e:'e__ie   in  "*'**'-
report and go   the remedy. With
regard it is oontended that
when  _ 'i.§i@§i:1esa.t.' took place after miclnight.
there iaino:   why the deceased Murugan
 'near  of Dr.S.Kn'ahnamu:1:hy at that late

      itwaa to demand the so called

   dot be  The Q

P

coit1_citieno.ejl:that one of the parties to the 1'ie-ti'-:'oi1 is .1: .-.........,''~-

 Qfﬁoe  iwdoes not lead to the mfeien' ' ee that the otne:"' Poiioe

  will fail to do their duty and ouch allegations have

  allowed to be made by the counsel who is a foriner

headofthePolieeo1ga_nisationwouklindieatethatthe

I
:5



petition is actuated by improper motivations.  

the contention of the petitioner   it

murdered cannot be accepted 1 ._

is exannnJn' ' g the matter.    , " it

aough ibrdinmin In: the ,v:-;i.;.«;n:«z.s:-;;et 

wu urn-DI-I

6.    in whose

  conducted the
case   statement aa well as

addiﬁontai.  ohjeceﬁ  have been ﬁled by

9
E
E
E

It is categorically denied thnt

   by .__.him am... the. he ___lInr| e

.--.-.-.--.§....---

nt-1' 4- >'  an  ""n-- mini';-a-win':-u.nn-u chug-nI-- 'tn.

1; no "In-n
 CID  I IIIG  I-I-Iiﬁ II' ILIG

petitioner that  Puruahotham Ran was not a gunman, but

 ldcwtiistdtoook and did not know how to handle the sun are

 With regard tothe allegation that deceased 

house of the neighbour of the respondent Sri Nanjappa and

1
la



that 11:: had also made him work is denied and    

is stated that the mud' ' ent hook   'V

construction of the house in   

Krishnamuxthy and which  to  " T'

by t_h.t.: e.1n_d gf Dar._=c_I.II._h:.r   !'="'*J.m..='

  ' ._."'..'-._1V"v~ .1.-- .1 1.... _.._.
w.u...u.....m. uas 'ﬁr. -'Fm-r;~:: u 112;. - tun uuiri

dain.   statement has
also    to state that
 constructing his
houscllz  the house of the neighbour Sri
   -of that house "had stopped
by  and git' and the said sai Nanjappa had

 a    

I1:-I5-Inn; mm. nlan

 aa.'.a_  a  ' :10 a snngnyyu uuau % }u-'a.u.u.n.n¢u_[ nan cu-nun:

1'*x:*-.33 ; aim ulﬁfiﬁ in unis uuuusm, uu: uuim ﬁiit fﬁﬁii 'I3? ﬁe

 peﬁtiangi» has been denied. with regard to the allegations

 Sri Puruahotham Rao was only a cook etc,

'    states that Sri Purushotham Rao was

mcruitnd as a constable on 22.2.1996 and the demila with

1
33



same manner as contended in 

on behalf of the coveinmené.eick_T1i¢'eii¢iaiia  ff,

pistol iasued by the  the may *   mined
in that xegaxd is  to--'_$:'ni- ft»,  that an
Purushctham Rap was     of the

n
-. .-- _......_'..__

Pistol. !* in  iiiam '  ii of t.h.e cnmtnr

_...........1 ...r 2
I

in iiieedpiisoiidd'    and security
suapecf as such three gunmen were
   General of Prisons and

 V'  _    continued for his protection. Dr. S.

   states that an ex--police Oﬂicer of

 open pnesa through the media inclusive of

  and television stated that a letter was also



E
lb

..-e-------

g-mm"! and was taamhew to hart:-'Ea fie _a_rr:ii.

 

ft. is "t this tinge the  Ex-Foiioe -Gﬁieer went to 

and made a statement pmettcally' " retracting   '

that Sri Purushotham Rao was a cook,   of' 'A V'

the situation by asserting that Sxi   

been properly appointed   dnot  t'

according to the rules. This  the  oﬂioer
is to none other than he  
Dr.S,K.1is.?1.n_a.m_I.11t_.hy f-.:.Ijt!:.ef  net mm or
3.-assess    he  shot
     place, he
  oontml Room and to
the nor-t,« t the Police-came to the spot,
they Atfoundtéttthev A   whioh had been used in an

   the kitchen door. The fuse of the

 . been tampered with. Immediately Sri

 ﬂee informed that he  the heeeeh erhe .1-e«i..

" §_h9t  urn-I gig em... :..........a:..a._:.. ............e...: The

 ?

nun a a nun: Iuuuuusnlusy u::uI.uuI_=u.
'I...

_'I____

 c--r"""'~"" "pen 'f the uoor was not suoeessfui because of Sri

2%

1
J?
1.



Puruahotham Ran': alertness and timely   jieomee
of the neighbours who had come out on hearing   H

noise are alao mentioned in the objeot_io1_I  ,!t   l 

w-u-an-nor --mu-unrup I-I-II-J I-laid LIIJI-I

Sr';  . ':"hexT: was   mom-1y'w&he;m""a 

iimse mber gang had made  only
few days earlier. They mm  of lime
by an air riﬂe. Dr. S. eﬁlitce with regard
to the pIO0OdllﬁfLt.1 i.at   ﬁ_|,ga1d)n' 3 the
Illasiaterial  or C.lr.P.C. The piaml
used Vhzv"-e  "R:*.o"§ was taken over by
  ;»;._:1am_a_~.  

lmlkt -.-.'h§.¢h.4 l~.e=.:'. hit  was also f  air} 'the

   Ran. The details ofthe ballistic report is
 l 'V tatﬁ5oi..1:g:on':t"hc body ofthe victim mad as such the shotwue
  V l elm: ﬁoint blank range. Two sniffer' dogs were pleased V
    The first sniﬁer dog was made I to smell the J!

J:

a
II



\-

boulder and it jumped aemua the wall', went' to 

when-. Murugan was found dead and than  

Fa
IO

v------pu--- ---u--nu

u
I

..¢ ___..4. m1._ ____.._1 4-- ...1.:_I_ :-_.._._" '..1..;--a.,-I
I. ElL'«C.l.I.l... ILID ﬂ.'nUl.lll I103 WIIIJII   nan

later was macie to ameii fuse   

to the place when:    went
along the same trail up  conﬁrms that
the boulder wags    mmnved by

   The

dglpiin "Q.   iii? "in _ ' lg!-III: n _ . nun  ¥'l'h'h

____-__ 1.-.: _____.___u.;_._~a A_'I__ __s._1

"E Illlllllﬂllﬂilﬂlllllllﬂlitlillﬂllll

 Lg- _l_;a'__.;. __
pcnunnlng igla-uulieu .

I    by the Ieaponcient;  regard to
  _ made by the learned eounlel for the
%p¢ti::aon¢£A"t:;a:}a%:aar enqlxhy would not be made, it is stated

  incluuge of the GOD is a very senior and

  Olﬂoer who h even ' senior In
   and Sri H The qualiﬁcations

E

istnn . _f . lung until :_ yanks-I      ' 

  



7. In the additional nintemeﬁtief By ﬁeﬁ

mandamus is not  'the-re beimig demand

of  No.:i65g.ri;1 ~ .353 3-_:-J. with

.%~«siioma**-kijimeiei%[iiiieai§ §i%'kia cane inniitutieti 'by
Dr.K1-1" ﬁne'-m. mm .'   learned counsel for the
petitioner fbz' "is akin indicated. Refening to

   in the Writ Petition ﬁnther details

  the petition and the emappeara to be

 eaﬂier statement of objections. Further

',.»the44uave!:n~...e1itahaveheen1efened Inh1mde:rIn1nd1oa' ' to'

V'  i_It_t_:;rn_:_I1L1st_e1I_t::1_nn 9! @ ;*_-=-.fnm._...-gt: '''-'..._......I-''-'- 'W %>

-  -Iifl-5!!-Srurnnu-n u'Ina\-- I-'In... food-I.'-.

It II-rJ'

um. um-'-mu"iiu"i-a i"u*i'r-en' iii the

:3



additional objections stntcmcnt am in the   

form, the entire details need not (go.  '     L"

8, l__ at.» Q gen t_ht_r   9. "

m---...moo      'cm-era
 it 'at denied by  as an moi: in
the house or   in the
petition mot 3:.q;.o;: :oho£'j_;_y§h§oh.__o-- in the death of
Mmuggn  in also denied. The
Qaid  he is a gunman eve:-since

  _ 'Pieto1' had been given to him by the

2:
i
E

.....A.I.-.. .........I 'I..-
Plullﬂit Ml":-lM uI'Ul illlll '[115

cm.'  ejgﬁnnﬁs warranted the opcnm' g of file file. He

 that he had already made the umtcw ants in

 tn the said cirmmnatnnoe bcfom the sub-divisional

  _'V_!§§iagia!1atc and before the Sanjaynagar Police and also before

the COD.

:\,".-.



9. On behalf of the petitioner, rejoinder -has 

ﬁled.

10. On these rival oomcn!:3aI:s,'l  ll

Dr.Kriahnamurthy. the     Sri 

Sathyanarayana Singh,;__   and

the Inn-I-nut} %II'I'|ﬂDl far

I65'!

11.   are in eiabomtion
of the   coninntion would be
   inetead of speciﬁc
meﬁexenee  mfcrmd to by the learned
 'V  "person whichever relevant would

 ll   to  analysm g.

12?... 3-.V *'.....n '-........-=-.':m'......**'--' of *...e ri-J.-.1 wr."--..e..&:-.=

 41.. '___ Wﬁ1_.!.. _..'  I'. _L LI. _i ail}. . I _ ..1 .n.._I _ __

 past midnight of 23.12.2001 and early hours of-

?'  24.12.2001 in the house of Dr.K:mhnam' army in not in

I

L



 .  "w  lilan nrII'I1|"T_..- ".1.

" ._ ntmduﬁgl

dispute. The question raised by both the sides

with regard to the allegations made by the   

first instance alleging that  kk

shot at deceased Murugtm from  

     of

{kg 1 " . n (I;-inn
luv III-ﬁIﬂ.l-I!-I-I-I-I5 nnsuu -I_,VH!l- we 5:: {I II'!-2)?!' wsnnun nan;

C)

second  on    
is an em wheresgi   shot deceased
Murugan,    handle pistol and
in any a uituat-.ion« cannot

be ju§ﬁ'jﬁegl~  came not oatiaﬁr any one -of the

  102, 103 and 105 of Indian "Penal w

._.___  tJI.;s_m: the

.1
--_..._-- --...-_ .._ ...... .. .-....-... .. .._...._- I...............

' ..=.-.'&e-...L..  _ nnuuavunnru 'inn 'In.-I-I nlllnl-inn-I Ian

 is oontraly in pmoeciume and in fact S1'-i

 Po 31-uL  Rae was only a cook -who was woﬂcmg' for

l?'»r.I§riahna:nurthy. On behalf of the respondent, not only

'   posting ofSn' Purushotham Run as gunman has been

)2

3
'-



0

-.-.'1*.e:.~e-.-m-.z'.cr Sn Pia:-.:sha'a"1m*u R" was ﬁﬁﬁi '  ' .

ﬁre is also     'V

Dr.Kr.iahnamurthy owing certain  

to certain mason work alleged'   

not only been denied by Dr.Kna!mam 1'    £1} derailed
explanation has been    the  ' ' of
such a claim.   have been
angued at   sum; (.3;-1I_.t-t

__..._.:_V_. _.__.1 '1 Lu'; ' ._ .4:

.  manna'  t he ioat sight of. -Every
cietnii  t§ingVto   '  Having occuned. the manner in

Wh'°hh the '@1',_' 'f ohaasoobeen '  lined and as to whether Sri

 L'  iota in detail in a writ  as ifaaaeaaing

 gag, trial. All that zequzim to he noticed' in this

 peti;ionV i1_I  Iegaml to the ymeedure followed, with regani

 »1'g'm_ 11;- -_tI_',_mLit_r:I_ g.-1.1.-.1.-.«.~.t.-e.a-.1 by 4.1;. pn...L --4.... -*..1.'-.a-.-=m...........--'-''----''

..

3' "I'1."'l IIQIID -I-Ian, I-I-Inn----n|-Iv angst Again: Ii} 1 1.:|luI.- uuvu unuuniu IIIU IISHCEIIL UB1?' lllll' the extent ofanalyaing the contentions put lbrth _....I_.._.__I IrnI_.:g._1,A '

9. *.....'"-.. 3'13.-e&e %:...."-" R dam m . Gu".|i'_y' E an cu-'ujiiﬁ by the GB} is 'melon. 'v V this aspect of the matter, the this Court while considering cf in the petition under "iof mm 1 also mquima he he in math E E E '5

2..

to counsel for the pehlianer"

,_on thiist:g!:a..«the contentions urged in the petition the news items which have appeared in folkzwing the incident. -A perusal of the which' have been prod. need both. by the A i ' as well as Dnliriahnamurthy would -indicate' that

-- xetamg t9 the ei_r:¢.-1-'.-i__-I-.r;.e in -I .=..!.-=.:.;*er'.. *..-.-h. t!-__..-2 L 'I. learned counsel for the petitioner' himself gin ' stage itself the learned counsel forvthe in certain' issues with regard to the on 27.12.2001 by the to the Hog Mihister details 'U Jenna;-s _ u-_p wntaizieﬁ in the said ''''11---'*---"' *-n*'..'%m""--.'.'-:==.-1 "!.-....a Let several.

issues have    thotiﬁ

than    The learned counsel

would instructions. I do not wish to advert the g same since any such observation either of the parties in the other amongstvthemselves. However, with regard to the . 5';

" on. hehaslf of the that the doaease-i~ -asst shat d% by .....i-Heel!' at point range when the deceased appmacheti for of the outstanding wages, the same is not i' séubstsnﬁated except for the bald allegations made in the petition stating that certain other persons who were II' B--II----

SInt.Anjah' that Murugan had tnld them that e & her village after collecting 1", card. e I as':

Hﬁnhnnvnirrfhu, "I"'I'u-, nﬂunv id'. . ~_

1.-.: ¢';'.~.n_-n ¢V'.:l_...a,V. 'VA.'I.__4. V amp _ nuun llllll.

deceased: :'v1iu"iii'a"'u man -5151 in the next house and had ;e§s9n's work in his house and had fm. the "me though he before his house. It is re. to explain that wages. Despite the fact that forth by Dr..S.K1-.iahna.I.nuI'th_I,r en' kin hnllnn I-nut! nnvlnn-Ilni-J11 an I1'nr:u'I'§I'I\nr In ' _ '1.-u.I.u'.II.| 'll-ﬁlial sis new uvuwu in 1998 and that the eonsizruction week of building belonging to Sri Nanjappn had been October 2000 and deceased Murugsn had ne-t_.bee'n engaged by Sri Nanjappa for consimctima work, no has been placed on behalfof the petitioner nor any 0% person ha stated that deceased Murugan had" worked 3' :'_3-----------.

payment of his wages am:

either for Drﬁriahnamurthy or Sri K n_u_--_t_-M gmnotiatgtt otatement. tiattugh it its about 15 other lam"-..ze:e.'e we '.-.I'r.2z4*1.r._'i_.z.'-'gV_ tlzae, aiaiement is maria by 5 hefbm Court. on =t:ttt= other the by Sri Nanjappa to the not worked would lend put forth by pemon can ta' would approach the other for during midnight and that too whet gm a_I.l_1Q!Lnt gunmen; for __a ""'g{ '!'ht-=5:-;;%m.V the thwry of the dw.........-'--*--' ....'*-=-'.'i"..g 1 __ 'uh y havJn' 1; shot him at that tune' cannot be in event.

A 14. with regard to the allegation that so Puruahotham % 'V I-i§ao was working a a cook and he was not entitled to handle weapons is without' basis whatsoever since the teoomds "ﬁ'1nH'1n '~'m'*e' pre:«»m.'°=,t wnén submitted clearly indicate his appomunent, imparted, a gun being issued. The Tnontg kk been posted as a gunman to tine p:Iooec_l1n\:: L n_t a ,ua.tLe_i' go_ e is '' any %vent the tact' ' cannot be disputed and .duﬁfe'a'aé1';to'- in a particular situation er in which' he has looked into by the a Police eanducma by the jurisdictional police an as such if any of the ﬁnding awe itv':ia to be questioned in an appropriate av... 'nun-ugl of p-.'.~.-ﬁ...z-.g of 9"' =*'---l'=e"---m J-..~.. .'.. .....1-.. I..- ____. :_ _I__ __ _. .9 1...-__ .mi'€su _y'uTru::e|u.7.|.Iu1'I'.m=-"' '= itzaeif, he was the pension who waapreaent iiarii the weapon and not Dr- Kxiahnaanurthy. as Further. if after considering the case put forth by . petitioner, ifthia Court is satisﬁed that the matter calls for any further enquiries, these are matters which would 3 ee-nt.eer_I +._._r--_t LI-.... mm-A-we see at have to be considered therein and therefore, a ﬁact cannot be rendered merely made in the form of oath againt wteieh mum I.ae«.:e ta be e;;he,ee-et;;, :.2-en....;_.ie h an I '41" ' I-A HUB-C.|H51\u.a 33 in Si' ' I II-ll

-e I... D -» -.l.il!¥I-ll.

petitioner, no doubt, ifmnataita Manual Vol.1 whexein standing guards Vthesmhlhnum smengttv of the and four cozntnhlcs. In so as is stated in clause 729 that guards tn. may be pnwidecl with the of The learned counsel 'would A A 9. g-mm-.:.-I-. in la-nu veIv1|-'IwIuuI-II- w--v-rs unnunennn In.- :2 I. ?

AL _J.

n,e..ar.:n i..'L...':V;-.«s..."... .. ~ 1...... ..... 1.-.... _ 'u:..u-.An:.'.vA nu t uuuu xuutnvuu. Inc 't ulul. could be posted on or-tiers of the governm ent disputed. In the instant case. the government Vine: disputed the iiact of gunman being allotted to . __lI3r.S.K1iahnam.unthy. In fact the details of the tmmm' .' g undergone by Sri Purushotham Ran at GAR Head quarters iz and that he had been assigned work an n L.Revanaa1d- ' da1ah' and later . 411:: k V Sri Puruehotham Ran * been stated by the that-

aﬁer retirement of Sri  _    Ruo

   

a.sm--.-gab     .......m as

details? allotted to senior Police gem' are available in the :i11v"'§'1'l£i-*?lio~;x'j" tiibbaadiuon to the latcment of the G5,' v-gm' :wgr1t;e'~"a1i'§JAsIiyap1-alca """ ah Nayak. Deputy Come" ' er df Reserve I-LQ. hm ﬁled an aﬂidavit ' "5'""".'"!5 """"

clarifying the method and manner of i-LQ. "i"'ne said Giﬁeer to in iqaave been made by Sri Bagbel, IFS who was working as DCP. WThesaidOﬂ'iee1'haaalaoswomhothema:nnerofpostingSIi I J;

'11 Purushotham Rao, Sri Ravi and Sri Sumah ' that the; learned counsel tbr the pciiﬁoimr K 2 at that time was also aware of has also ataind about

-van -*"-' ' - ""*'-"'***"'~ in-' *'*-In th.-.-.0 «mun» aw mm or am General__o_i' V ber2001. ltiaalso assigned In all the miniatem and since 31.7.1999 the Hon'ble of High Court wen: al given the V .. ..... .. and that _ Ont is J. a_- _..- -...".;..f___¢ .._..a 41...... ....... ....... ' .. Illily aauiﬁumuut mm uusy an: pauuuwu vvuu an unuum E. :.

3. I' E ?

HI piatoi' along with necessary mnmuniiions. "i"'neae stats e to indicate that the allotment of gunmen are made communication and the instant case i not an isolated case. The communication datnd 30.4.2001 stating that the #1':--I-uh Ii gunmen are aaaipied to Dr.Krishnamu11:hy ii ':7 V' mama. Theiefome, in my view;""theA Puruahotham Rao 3 a gunman of ._ be said to he unauthoxised.

15. In $13 {the 'i"'"~"'""' :'.--"-"'- cf "'-

incident which _' Z noticed. _ ggagiondenm is that had gone out to a movie had thereafter ietired for the dayi was in the basement and is to noise near the kitchen door and . "" come " out, a stick had been. inserted' to the '.".;.jm:.'.~~s.-I.1*...!:I.'IriL..I..-.- and 9..ﬁ.2.'-r pulling the dI'_|£.Il' and Union a "2 'V - o a hi*e¢;ismg~ Suﬁ stiris: I'.':u"i"'u' 'mt an iic'a"uuuuu'.""' that 'ck-tee petaoixvsiwem attempting to tweak open the kitchen door with boulder. On noticing Sn' Purushotham Ran, the said jaemona am said to have attempted to attack him with the boulder and as such in defence and to prevent the mime, he I }> 'n.

opened ﬁn-. from his aewiee pistol which * persons who later was thereaﬁer attempting he run eﬁrrze 'iitﬁliﬂ save'.-ai euhﬁ m @ .pet in View of t'|'u':x""uu'if'u":':'i' called the auiveci at the spot Hospital.

In __ __eontex1=ﬁon put forth by the the fer the petitioner attempts to the scene ofoiienee which might manner in which Sn' Puruehotham ﬂed. awed glee mfened to the amt air tliroiiﬁ 'u'u".:;c-'.1 the 33%: has -ﬁt-"H tn EHIHFDTUW 9|:

_opnm"naf_' that he had not insianinneousiy The meamn' g of the part ofthe body was also retenecl' ' ' In ihct the reference made by the learned counsel for the petitionertothepoatmortzamreportietnoontendthatthe " bu-_---

o 'I7 ' . 'I aux: U|.!.|.I}.I uuqgulmuuu 6: Lu txajectory would suggest that he had ﬁxed ~ the same level and the deceased w.aa..s_tandmg_ T AL V fawn' g the man who ﬁmd and net' argument would mine' I:

Rao more probable as ﬁle two ether; who were must have been 4-:

cha.".-i"-..g 9.. .bL'.a t..v.A:,=-V--.--.....-.';...'.A--.1.r.'_e.~.e,Iz t-he-.t they have 1;..- 'n.;_.

t a.~uun'f"ui% 351% h' """' G WEE not the ieamed Gounaei.

Rao that he came out to his master and when he was being ..atmttKc£i3 A be lite seems to be the more gcce iitéblb Aﬂer ﬁring.' since' he did not die he mut have attempted to run away aﬂer the 'I'I._ -pl QJI~ln'I.JhUill "ml-:Iln:II:;Innr C-'In =f£.. I-I-I.l'Il' ﬂﬂﬂlll w .. .!.I.I_ _ L1. __._ V' the scene of nor has anyone 'spokenwithregmdtotbat. Thoughthelemnedcounaclwaa I ,\'| sarcastic about the size of the boulder so he to he the size of which is seen in the pheeeg;;;px; " that it is big enough to cause with. The right of pm te defencef' hy th as to cf inf:-rim-,9 t_t__'I t

---JIe.'d- .--u LEA: r-in I.I.l.l.r _|_.lJavI-tun-I riureuu _A - >--_--.--..--


wme-.u . sight

hiinaeifor the   

 null: I

by the    'put the same
cannot   evidence as done in

. . We] to seen is that the chain of events the property. the guaxd cut in pxevent the crime on hearing the i i " ifan attempt to attack the penon of it " and in that circumstance. private d4Er;r:"*.~w.-_.ih.-- it emanate m '.2-.;-t.|.1..t FI.L*.he.1-', t..._hn '_._I!__J._ LI__A siatenierit of the neighbours wouid mmeaue mat them was no and the materials also that fuse {was removed. In such circumstance, the incident has taken place. Theleamedcounselforthepetitionerhasalaozelied 9 J2

1.

on the decisions to exphain the view" expre seed bzvf: "

Supreme Court with vegan! to the vmarmer it it private defence and it is further decision would also indicate-ithgrt the to = "

private tieferrce is to Sessions and case of @ RAJA ssxHs;é;4.%i, (cri) 16] the facts involvctl has exchange of hot words over of rims destroying the crops of the acceeseq. others who went to the piece . i sheep and untied it hum' the rope, which of words hetwee-1.1 the and when the dwased kl} do-.-.-rr alter ..;.......*-'-*-.*;:*.g the V injuries, the accused another hinw on his neck. it is context when the accused took the plea of right of h it defence, the Horfble Supreme Court expressed that the entire incident must be exarnined with proper care when I :| such defence is taken and the accused must were circumstances giving rise In it apprehending that either death ._ E3 s'5'i':"{i'E or-' ceearrzsreaae 'é-;.~.1Tr}.~é.he *-

invoivefl was a case    between the
sisters and  e  am: the 6
accused      by Janguram

and when.eh_e' the accused appellant

--_ .. danguram was holding and assaulteti"-hire and caused seweral injuries git' is in' the right of private defence H-ti-W 96- 9! !PC was -.-.-.=r..-.=-.mLnerJ. ms! in fact t.._h-. I__._ an s ueu mat ii' 'net iii 'htract such a question can be down. in the efjaear smea vs. STATE or I-IIMACHAL PRADESH [(195614 SOC 296] the facts involved in that case has been since the deceased was unarmed and there was no justiﬁcation on the part of the appellant for a :'i 'R:-

H-4%' m an-n-""6 in :.:.-.r_-. ca_ne4A-_ND.VV,K_i\!Q'§'§iEaR"jVS. V t seven: blow on his head with a takwa. In the case KAHAR vs. STATE 01? BIHAR [(1971y3s.s_cc tent " 's V had taken place at about noon on at"a_ it ﬁeld in the village where the dilfelent porﬁons and vtrhen his 1-.eig,hbcu.-re.-"s sI.re1rI.t to cthers wen: also there, Han-ay-2 am'. mi; whihe iianhu was ii "aft:-lat s'u-ﬁg-3 Hi.'€a}'e=.t ordexed when: there was a dispute was attack on each other, based on the evidence that was "Court aﬁer trial. In the case of '' ll °-JH?a.l§MAL vs. sTA*rE'o:r HARYANA [(199412 sec 551] the then: was a light between two group =.-.' es.c.h cth_..r s.n._I.i. injuries and in that cmiieiit the Hcﬁ"c" Sapreme %'art had 11:11'. that the need not prove the plea of seiftieﬁ':uce "ycrui all h lléeasonable doubt, but if preponderance of probabilities. the plea becomes plausible then they have to be given that :' %--------

up beneﬁt and it was noticed that the same * ' some cxtcn t. Similar' ' is the new' tar the "of; Pl§.g1'_'3;jU._V M' "

PRASAD SAH vs. same or BIl;lAR1'_'_'[(1;97ti}4" :SCCl:28§};.: From me' declare' ' ns cited bylV._tlrex f petitioner what is evident is that_ H_on'ble'* Court .......'~-=-' -................~'-=-'-if-~' the me: ﬂ taken its -'new and all the f-~- casessvnm '-me.-...-"-:3.-*--..;..~.-.

had been in the ﬁat such the learned counsel for all the said cases, there was a the offence which had been invesﬁggteclll had been ﬁled, and in the said cases been taken which had been and therefore it is for the Sessions Jnﬁge Ate erar.-r*..*3e this asp.-..-'-t and then-..=.-.!'!.er to M iaesteci .i;efoIe the forum. it is t.'aei'cfore wntentled the instant case also' , charge' of murder should have ' liaeen tram' ed and only in such prosecution launched, it would have been open for S11' Purushotham Rae to take such I :2 'a.

JE-

u- .

deﬁnm and tn ,iu_t.Li3r m- ﬁn" the and the Police it dwizie on t.....*--'- ~---t.:_.lﬁe__"« contention, the decision above cannot ii since the circumstances and the not analogous to the instant *' case is also a case of murder However, what requiles' :.;gﬂ§j;e which the investigation the incident I.an.. the the Magietmte ant'. it'. placed on the said an =ttip}~~:~.+.er;'.;--;;-.5-.--. -.-...-g.-.-=.. etill m «int "whether it woiiid ieqiiire a it as prayed by the petitioner or "-era' should have made out any grievance 'Heme before any other forum. Though the pi for the petitioner contends that the of a case for murder was a must in View of the p1rc'a..____n contained in Sections 299 and 300 Cr.P.C, what 42 was the informant to the jurisdictional police. éhfe = incident on 23.12.2oo1%anc1 based..on.._the '?EI'4tietei1ed.,. kt investigation has been made investigation the chmue petitioners had the able that ﬂ-35:': nlun ha:-I ﬁlnrl _g_ 1; 'nix L ,.._...,__ s_Iﬂeget_Ir_n_a hne made that San' '..ua'*- -'-pu-*-mu'-'*-. no mw steps he the mvmeentaﬁon made the Home Them1iore,__ (xnnplaint of murder against Sri ttméetgittt-mg the course of investigation has the Police that the incident he . . " notﬁken in reported, but it was a case of :

t.__.1e were ci_1t_:umetnnoe lending to that. 31*} petiiioneis himseif stating in to the h"i1e Miniomr that it has been repieeented to mm" ' that Dr. S. took out his pistol and shot at Mu-rugan when he had gone to aakforhiawagee, them iano material 3 J2

-

I whatsoever and as such the question of it murder against him did not arise. that context that Sri Ptnushothaia ﬁée.,A%A.not«. ._ pistol. but the _perusal of c01§--_m~o:,i"' A ' 4 only for his 1_n.:t..r :_,u., i;«;-L:-+i;.-=;'.=-ml. dar-

Based oi: iuveaiiga the nggm occurred the question oi not arise as routine is eamhliahed to be faulty appmpmiaae forum.

16. Though-v__thei' iearned' counsel for the petitioner' ' case where a person is killed, the Iegiatered and nought to allege that in the such case is registered' only because K V --V is inﬂuential and his colleague oﬁieera him, the ieapondents series' may disp um and on bQh§l_f «.1: the .-,«.r.»-.-_n.--........=r-u--2 it ia --......--~.......-I-.;e 4! To substantiate the aspect that it is not "

special tmatment in the pmamt c;-men; M when similar circumstances amae _ attempted to commit the " V L'

----n------ -n._ miirxiﬁ eases hair: *;<Iii."'r:e§%'aa:e'.i' s7v'ir'u:uue-*- 'ii auuu"-'- cases sf 'a -iint of cases ~ In ito sac/1999 an am» can 333

- F' 91.1; or the Kurntakn latest Ant. - «iwhslfe efie"""'I'ajimulla and Ahmed Khan. and three _ total of Eve accused pet-"eons attacked the 'V uewhile they were challenged when they were X pbzfunitting theft of Sandalwood and when they attacked the police, two named above were shot and they died due to the iniuriea received. The accused have been charged for deceit}! and aennult on Public Servants etc and ease in P1' as three ancueed nix '7.

45 have abaoondod after several hearinga. at ohm. _ noted, after the inveatigatioz-_1;.».Atho 'ix 'tit_i!yV"ogainst'4 " "

the accused and not agaiﬁgt action in self-defence.

. Attihclo Or No 3189 V-"--~ Bittappa s/o P§na;ppa%o*§iA:t;fo§ie, Bidargu' mange' . where on the i2.__1:..tti9i§9'; this house was attacko.:i:Aby_ml1taot;o gggd ISIG fﬂlappa opened fire with hing oiwfof dacoits and on CC No .. convicted (home again the aiction in self defence was not " ﬁns) ~ as am; 14139 an ass -- on the night of 10* _11vh t"J'anhu'a:~y 1939. at 0115 hours, one B v A 3 " ' T. S/o Venkatoahappa of A village opened fire on daooito who made attempt on his house and one of the daooits was killed. And the case was made out only against the accused pemona and no case was made aminet the person who acted in self defence.

-_Iu\'-3"""""

4 .'aa:.~.maa-.-.--- 93 cr 291:9: we 39: !"':~W""*-:*e Lo uﬁiinow ciacoita -tt""ed and cf compiainarxt ivtaﬁiuﬁath ----parea {are «aw. 3;-=j:=..--.aé;'o;~. .-;:;e.1a Puiiaiah and the caaci ._"""":jan.t.".o_t'u_":-";' '*7.

under 395 iFC and the in inc

5. iiohmauin in 307 c'c when-: one (was kiiieci in an encounter cud one in the incident.

on as person or pemons ;in: c!f_ «tatéﬁw were hauled up. 6} . 9512001 where one Neaarkar attacked on 21.07.2001 and won killed in actioo of ' 3.1'Jf«'dcf6ﬂO6 by the local police. Case was up against the accused Neaarkar and not on ~ firaoaegttxvho acted in self defence. to , 17.; The above cases an: noticed only to indicate that t were instances of other cases as well even earlier to ' gcriod and after the period of the case on hand, where }T_!Iii_ﬂAt.I_3 i_11d_ivi:_1uta_lc as as police had taken action in J, F. preventing the happening of a cum' e and the ' did not warrant ﬁling of muIder.:eaaeo fanc1i_'§_ne._ AV' favoritism could be alleged in the hi' the only case in which no _ is because of the incident '-

hot:-tee. V AV t

13. "mAe--m*e': 111' g this aspect of the ofinveatigation out and also by the GOD is and from the said moulds it is gamed out V'that."'ttnv1nediately after the incident Sri t Raehiﬁnsetr has inthnned the same to the viz., the Sanjaynagar Police station. 011 we Statement or am t 51 the w!io.e 3% I £5' 1'! I If § 'l __ _. LL _ 4._.L___ 1.' L ..... include the ne1gh' ' hours, other peraona and aiso Sri i.e., one of the petitioners and the mother of the deceased Murugan. In fact the mother has stated that the 43%....

deceased son was a Vagabond. 'T"ne COD has aiso further investigations in the matter. Ultimately * ' same, a charge sheet dated 23. 10.2C__)02.was K V' it cos thmugh Senior APP as agamet thee for the offences punishable 'tinder ' and 393 of 190. The learned the charge sheet has adjoumed to 31.12.2932 :--'-..".-.!.:_.-'-.1 closed as ahateri. Thoiigh3='theV 4_ an um ymiuu 1 attempteti oondueteci by COD does such change is not justiﬁshie: ' to state the deﬁnition of mbhery as contained in Sections 390 "-.s11"(i rm aniieiaei that the learned Magieuate has not the respondent Dr. Krishnamurthy would of the said details am beyond the CT ' nucu um 1 U i':

i ééupieme Court has ' own the iaw on this aspect and I '3 cited the dec1a1o' ' net in this regard. In the case of ' INSTITUTE or MEDICAL SClENC1"¢SA".'"11lvIlPLg4(')V"'Y%VI§3"E.S§'4 "Uz~.Ij-:_)N=t,V & At vs. UNION or-' INDIA [1996] 11_'tl:§ Supreme court has the mr-«mm»-.2, 197:3 pzgggzilzgg tab into the cat -- ai"£e'r;ws '-ct:-'.5. 1:-. new-t~,.....t of cognizable oi'I"s.r.noc, Fiﬁ eﬁnié -pin-san':1-uma"*" the Pmcedtues, 4.mlW 1 "WT" ! WW" "° invcsﬁggtse Hon'blc Supmmc Court (1) of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. ' in wine' 1: the mforma' tion . .3 in& in also nomad' and thereafter t'.L.-_--. " Court has stated that when the I 3' 1 I' ;='-

5' 5 :3.

I2- 53 *3 is 5 :

taken, the oonapiainant is giver: prﬁT:i"- and-r 190 read with Section 200 of" the C'a'.P.C. to lay the . V. tiomplaint beﬁm: the Magistrate having jurisdiction to take cognizance of the oﬁbnce and the Magistrate is required to 1 '3 enquire into the complaint as provided in the... .

Cr.P.C. The Magistrate, after ta: " 'V prima facie case instead of issuing it the oﬁbnoe under Chapter XII 'tin émbmit a r.-.ﬁ,.ert. !f be __..ﬁnde not disclose any rn"x"--*euue-- tr; '--.....e'--- fr:«:*.herV'eeth'¥e:.-3, tn dismiss the ""~...r.~.'--'.'-.'.'.. On the ¢.......'--I' hand. muoniea pea-.a facie is emjaowma to take would issue process to the aectgaed, Court, after explaining' ' the

- that the petitioner without procedure in not entitled to approach the Writ Petition and seeking a direction In r:T'i'ai2,'fti~a'-3 i.'r.te*.i':'.a*é.e.': by *...h- GB! I.I;r.hit.=!I_ is 1;¢_J!:- to into aii or aiferu-"ae and as sake}: % =4-L-.-3-. 9.! i,_ A_I__ ' ham High Goult in refusing to grant Ieiiefwas upheid. 1: me case of GANGADHAR JANARDAN MHATRE VS. STRTE Oi? :

£1 um 'IV.

' -IJEI MAHARASHTRA AND one ((200417 soc A' Supreme court was considering e§eweeo& kt Petition under Arno' le 226 of the _ situation where the oft' I-n-[via of ﬂee -sag .*':'q.-em -to of'--1' after noticing toot tfne ea. regiaiereli on 29.5.1937 committed the case noticed the the Cr.P.C. by adverting to sectione'1e4, 15$ to 203 Gr.P.C. The Hon'ble Sugeteme noticed that even though there in t " no to ﬁle a protest petition, the e"

nah:-nn'nn-I-nv|'I-unmIﬂi1'|:u:|-1-liar '- IIIO I-IIIIIII-IV!!!-I J-I-I Ilvolvll-III-D re-L _" '~_ __:-1.. _.'4..'__. _; __._ ._ 4_2____ __ 1.1.. e__ 4|... :1. ....l...J......_.I.... ...-_...1._..._ cu... Gama: .§'ﬂ_ aVal.|auIU ID "ID muglauuln Illﬂel I ﬁ.a-I-H.711 17'3(2;)i:§).AofC1-.P.C. when the report is fblwanieti by the Poiioe explained. Among the said options, the Magistrate . the option to disagree with the report and also to direct further investigation under Section 156(3) and require the I 335-...

«;*'- ceruianlszneu we were cute.' u..r=.{m .A.:a=:- . Police to make a further report. The power "

190(1)(b) of Cr.P.C. is also expl(:iiie'd« .to'! a!eie.'V1jthev..A kk Magistrate can ignore the .' mveeﬁgaﬁng Oﬁicer. Aﬂer jig we * T' "b ﬂit': "w'i'it Petition since "proper temetiy"

without -avqilie:g_' the Or.P.C. In the cagepf Vs. STATE 05' Bil-JAR AND (:Rs__ though while examining the power mar same poeition with regard to of under Sections 173(2), 190(1) € I-I VI-Jl I-I I I A. 3236i, was hefre ﬁr i1"ii'h3e .-'?aiif»'r*'-c;uc- ""*-..-uiii"

l' a under 32 of the C'nnatii:uiion of indie for a direction to conduct enquiry by CB1 since ' to the petitioner his son was munieled. The petit:ioner's son who was working an Additional I 2%-

Commissioner was found dead in his oﬂioial "

19.1.2006 and grievance of the petitioner Oiﬁmala' in collusion" with acme _ the e.'l.eo:.s_u_zet1 are pxojeotjng .a12ici'c1e;"' " V .

%eral men-sentauone . ..

5"

§ I *2 =1' 1 «'4,-

{I II F' xeauita, the petitioner shoe no action was takcgioyl inetitioner. The 110111111: 11114. also, after noticing 156, 190 and 200 of (:1-.P.C;__ that the petitioner can lay a oomplaiiit. and as such a Writ Petition for_c§1mtion.Vt1o GEE investigate i not tenable. In the to vs, SIATE or xanam (AIR 2001 so au3?§,"-{E5 nH?.3n'7*.:1.e Sup:-we Co-41+ =-- -*'-'-'----'*--r' *.h-- in 'tall! I. -I-IIII-'I Inulluranlswnrv-A ago seooiiri Fix'? does 11ota"1aea1'_ii.'- tu- mfoxmaf T " Htion Iecetved' 'ﬁratin time wouidhe the recon!' ofF'iR, butiit would however be poaible that more than one piece of may be received from time in time from diﬂerent people in repeat of the same incident and in such situation I J:

'F:

ll bcfon: submitting the report, the Gﬁ"ioer is investigate into all other connected "Ia: i:o " he the decision in the case of KASHMER: '~ iaovj 'E-V):-:E.eI'aH:}'uV--"' ADMINISTRATION AND ANR.[19ag eh ii' » by the learned counsel for ' tiletoeeivee, the H__.'b1e Supreme com case of death in

--L %% o'.:=*..'..*J._-,r 9.:-,._-1 ..e-e:-..,t13.oI .;,-i_11--.'q:.g,1.,L1_fe1r1'£xV.' leiiftlaﬁon came to shield the coxiifniiiﬁt haii bee-ii ﬁled two sub inspectors and the eohesehzee refer the matter to the cm hue he Court beﬁne whom the charge been'VoiiBtoitted to exercise the power under Gr.P.C. to direct the can for pmper The said direction was however issued after aﬁeﬁ-'..g the .%*..e in t.h_1.a.t oooe as the same was I *3.

19. Having noticed' the decisions V' Hon'bk: Supmmc Court, it wow h x declaration of law is that this c.ntmannm' ' g a petition under' the:

_: Ldjn in direct the (3131 since

-----'-'-g in ﬁx: T _%z:: is mph pmviaiona either far tine m' taxman' the remedies grievance with mgaxd to .oa1hphh1ts. the manner of hlveﬁghﬁiipﬁorh charge sheet. In the instant A 'mg: to the Home Mininter by his fax tuning certain cimumatanoca and seeking Ieauoixﬁndicated in the mﬁhﬁﬁm is u t Inc a if - rnnmugr 1;, QB! fa-wr in_ggHunf-Inn The II ' -E I 3 .I-'J-I'-"-I|4II.ll,'u'.I'.'.Il-IE, Isl-II-t I-IIII 5 lull awn and Inna-quu-an-6 c---- -------- ' ' er of Police was a 'batchma' to and had jumped to % éonclu.-mus and also that the Head of the con cm in friendly terms with Dr.S.KrislmamuIthy in whose house the I 1'! incident had occurred and as such then: is "

cover up. The said reason alone appeaxa uh' and not even a cimumatance near :1?!) in KASMERI DEVI'a case moat by Dr.S.Krishnamuxthy__sueh who '"'m--"' w--- -= o.._,,hiuh-mat gig, _._.___!_'I L ..

wouuonIyr:% might have as if it in his other Oﬁioera need not be at the stage when the peﬁﬁonidwaa happened was. that the aﬂer the same was . V. Except for makm' g a vagu_ e allegation jam: been threatened by the Police when she

-'.2-.1i.ai.ir..m., no :.a.!.1.I_-ampt has been to art} a "'iittr=" -o"'"}a"-rut or uH"u'r.:':laia to the Oﬁiee" ran in the hierarchy. Even the date on winch' ' ' went to San1aynagar' Police Station is not mentioned in the petition nor is this reason stated in the representation I 12 '5} mad e by the learn_ ed counsel to the Home V' under the instructions of the peﬁﬁenen. A by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on to ﬁle a complaint under a * L' ..*'=act o..d. ...a-.'...g t...e 'he,-91 was before the iefelence of the we to been mean. it was have given additional as stated by the Homes1.pmee¢oam;1ioi;e case of 'I'.T.AN'l'HONY. In this g ."'rici:ir.~e¢i. above, though it is stated in the 15 other labourers along with lvllpa' I-lb!-3-yl-I -.Iv 'Ii'oI-ﬂy -Io'-I up .--------u-- --- _------ ---_-...---.---. .--.--....._ Vnvlzuur-nVi'..~;=ii~n.. n in _ 1'; id in ha 9 nnrh-:rl' In-m_ ;g;n_:_3 wgﬂg _....-_ 1.'|..." ..

I' them 'i3aV_1ive either approached the Police on their own or at theurinatance of the petitioners and as such except for the " gévennentn made and the assumptions and aurmieea stated, no other material has been placed by the petitioners before I J5 6- u€ﬁi7I'ﬁ Gt BIT-Sulu1n.|u|u"'1"uu4u: , uuuu Sf the investigating authorities when the "

pmgxes. Further the cliange-sheet'*'wa,s' the, it it Magistrate as far back as on 23. gi\i '"V~:. having by then ﬁled these * L' .2-..'.-Jar.-.-. of th.-Lr rég,..t..I.I m _ either

- --- -- is--5"'--." as-hk antler the c:;r.r-.c. as in the case oi"_Al;i.u SCIENCES, JANARDHAN MHATRE and for} me: amen. Theteﬁnve, without exemiaiiigeuehi for mandamus in the manner fer that too with the fragile allegation " i§ietn"1e«_.of étion a-.'cam_ ' at the investigating agency :1 "'1-\'

- nguld net be "'3 I-lb ..a.'..'.'l.'.3.-."!'.'.'i..".'!99.'_ _. -1.rin_ic-n c.-Jzpgeeeed by the I 3ii_'l'fTi'I".'7"'I'."a \.A.I|.l.I I. iwuuu us the oounaei ibr the petitioner eonds the of the COD would indicate inconsistencies, the cannot in any case be examined' in this Writ Petition and as pointed out by the I-Ion'ble Supreme Gourt, it can I

42. only he as per the pmoedun: available * even any further investigation is onlgnundcr K "

Hence, the petition to the extent dream dtarddw to refer the case to the CB] ...f_L 111. _."t outhorities V..V.....'V' 't-.';§.*"d='t.ila'.:.h befozzz i- had d;d~. and-~ Sectrioii 342, 185: ind deceased Niurugan and whenh in such a situation, the queatioh' of grant of compensation also wd"'1;'"\H19t A' t do f;h§..Ic8|ﬂf, the following:

l'\I3'I'\Ii'I'3 .':£.l.3.!=£.:lﬂ!a1 i] For the reasons and conclusions meached supra, both the writ petitions in W.P.Nos.5250T/02 and €i6,'.71,N_).2. oJe dimloged. discharged. 9 :r:---

ii) Partichobearthcirownoostn.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court