B R Ramakrishna vs State Rep By Jayanagara Police on 30 July, 2014

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

B R Ramakrishna vs State Rep By Jayanagara Police on 30 July, 2014

Bench: S.N.Satyanarayana

                            -1-



     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

           DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY 2014

                          BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA

                    CRL.P.No.7007/2012
BETWEEN :

1.     B.R.RAMAKRISHNA,
       AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,

2.     B.R. NAGARAJ,
       AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,

3.     B.R. SHANKAR,
       AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,

       ALL ARE SONS OF
       B.T.MUNIRANGAPPA,
       R/O NO.3, 2ND CROSS,
       EAST LINK ROAD, MALLESHVARAM,
       BANGALORE- 560 003.         ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI : ARVIND M NEGLUR, ADV.,)

AND

     1. STATE REP BY JAYANAGARA POLICE
        JAYANAGARA, BANGALORE

     2. CHANDRASHEKHAR B R
        S/O A. RAMAIAH,
        MAJOR,
        R/AT NOs.7 & 4, LINK ROAD,
        II CROSS, MALLESHVARAM,
        BANGALORE 560 003.               ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. KESHAVA MURTHY, ADDL. SPP., FOR R1
SRI N. KEMPE GOWDA, ADV., FOR
SRI B.K. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV., FOR R2)
                              -2-




     CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE
FOR PETITIONERS PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT
MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE
INSPECTOR OF POLICE OF THE FIRST RESPONDENT IN
CASE No.INR/CRIME/169/2011 IN RESPECT OF CR.
No.169/2011.

    THIS CRL.P COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:


                           ORDER

Accused Nos.1 to 3 in Crime No.169/2011 on the file of II Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, have come up in this petition challenging the notice under Section 91 Cr.P.C., issued by Inspector of Police, Jayanagar Police Station, Bangalore. The said notice is issued pursuant to complaint lodged by 2nd respondent before Jayanagar Police alleging that petitioners herein have executed an agreement of sale along with an unknown person claiming that she is their sister, Smt. B.R. Rajamma.

2. The said complaint is registered by Police in Crime No.169/2011 on 10.05.2011 and for the purpose of -3- investigation, it is seen that notice is issued by Police calling upon petitioners to furnish particulars with regard to person, who joined them as their sister, Smt. B.R. Rajamma, in execution of registered agreement of sale, which is subject matter of the complaint in Crime No.169/2011. Notice dated 10.07.2012 issued under Section 91 Cr.P.C., which is produced along with the petition at page No.7, would indicate that the same is issued by Police calling upon petitioners to either furnish particulars about the woman, who joined them in executing the registered agreement of sale or produce her before Police. The sum and substance of the complaint is that petitioners have clandestinely taken some woman claiming that she is their sister, Smt. B.R. Rajamma and executed the agreement of sale, which is sought to be investigated. For the said purpose, petitioners are called upon to keep the said woman present before the Police for investigation. It is seen that neither the said woman is produced nor any particulars regarding her identity and address is furnished before Police. Though under Section -4- 91 Cr.P.C., Police cannot ask for production of a person, petitioners could have furnished her particulars to Police.

3. In that view of the matter, this Court find that the objection raised by office regarding maintainability appears to be correct for the reason that petitioners are trying to stall the entire proceedings by raising technical objection without cooperating with Police with the sole intention of protracting the proceedings. Learned counsel for petitioners also tries to substantiate that the office objection is impliedly overruled for the reason that interim stay was granted. Interim stay that was granted is only a concession which is shown to petitioners. If granting of interim stay is considered as office objection being impliedly overruled, henceforth, the Court would have to be cautious while granting interim orders. In any event, granting of interim order would not enure to the benefit of petitioners to seek that office objection need not be complied and same cannot be considered as impliedly overruled.

-5-

4. With the aforesaid observations, the office objection is held to be valid. Accordingly, petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

Sd/-

JUDGE sma

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court