Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.26 seconds)

Shri. Suresh S/O Rajaram Jorapur vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 July, 2021

6. The co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M.Rajeswari Vs. State of P.S.I. (L and O), Kengeri Gate Police Station, Bangalore, [2001 (5) Kar. L.J. 532] by referring to the above decisions of the Apex Court has held that, the Sub-Inspector of Police of Kengeri Gate Police Station who is not a Special Police Officer competent to deal with the offences under the Act within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act, 7 more so, when he is not of the rank of an Inspector of Police, which would be the minimum condition in view of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act. In the case on hand, the case has been registered and investigation has been done and charge-sheet has been filed by a Head Constable of the Kittur Police Station, who is not a Special Officer who is competent to deal with the offence under the Act, within the meaning of sub-section (1) of Section 13 of the Act, when he is not of the rank of an Inspector of Police, which could be the minimum condition in view of sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act. Without considering this aspect, the learned Magistrate has rejected the discharge application filed by the petitioners.
Karnataka High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Amarannavar - Full Document

Sri Prakash vs State Of Karnataka By on 11 October, 2017

5. This Court in umpteen number of judgments have held that provisions of Sections 3, 4, 5 and 7 of I.T.P. Act would not be attracted in so far as customer present at a brothel housel. Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of M. Rajeshwari Vs. State of PSI L & O, Kengeri Gate Police reported in 2001 (5) KLJ 532 has also held to same effect. In that view of the matter, continuation of proceedings against petitioner registered alleging that he was a customer at brothel house would amount to abuse of process of law.
Karnataka High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - A Kumar - Full Document
1