Shreemad Jagadguru … vs State Of Karnataka on 3 December 2014
| Citation | Writ Petition No. 43825/2014 (GM-RES) |
| Date of Judgment | 21st December 2014 |
| Court | Karnataka High court |
| Case Type | Article-21,20and 14 of the constitution |
| Appellant | K.G. and Sri Ashok Haranahalli, |
| Respondent | Shreemad Jagadguru Shankaracharya |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDAK |
| Referred | Article-21,20and 14 of constitution |
FACTS OF THE CASE
This petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of The Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ declaring That S.53-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure is Unconstitutional and ultra vires the Constitution of India; Quash the impugned notice dated 18.10.2014 issued byThe 2nd respondent produced as Annexure-‘S’.
This petition having been reserved, today, the CourtWhen a person is arrested on a charge of committing an offence of rape or an attempt to commit rape and there are reasonable grounds for believing that an examination of his person will afford evidence as to the commission of such offence, it shall be lawful for a registered medical practitioner employed in a hospital run by the Government or by a local authority and in the absence of such a practitioner within the radius of sixteen kilometers from the place where the offence has been committed by any other registered medical practitioner acting at the request of a police officer not below the rank of a sub-inspector, and for any person acting in good faith in his aid and under his direction, to make such an examination of the arrested person and to use such force as is reasonably necessary for that purpose.
ISSUES
Issue Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) – Sections 156(3), 157, 161, 164, 166(3), 190(a), 200, 203, 204, 227, 228, 482; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 114; Indian Penal Code 1860, (IPC) – Sections 123, 153B, 34, 354A, 375, 375(a), 376, 384, 389, 420, 504, 506, 508, 511, 90
JUDGEMENT
The petitioner moved this court seeking the issue of Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ or Order quashing all further proceedings and the FIR dated 28.8.2014 registered in Crime No. 164/2014, registered by Girinagar Police, (FIR in Crime No. 219/2014, registered earlier by Banashankari Police, transferred to Girinagar Police) and for such other reliefs as the court deem fit to grant under the circumstances of the case. An interim prayer was also made by the petitioner seeking some protection from arrest during the pendency of the petition. The case came up before this Court on 8.9.20.14 and the Court heard the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel Sri B.V. Acharya and Sri. Narayana Reddy learned State Public Prosecutor and also Sri Shankarappa who has taken notice for the second respondent who have protested the granting of the interim prayer. On 9.9.2014, this Court considering the detailed arguments with regard to the interim prayer passed an order directing the investigating officers not to arrest and interrogate the petitioner till next date of hearing. Time to time, the said order has been extended by this Court. At the time of passing of the interim order, this Court has expressed that the entire materials were not placed before the Court. The FIR produced found to be incomplete and insufficient to draw any inference as to the allegations made in the FIR even broadly accepted, constitute any cognizable offence as argued by the learned counsel for the respondents. The court, therefore, directed the respondents to produce all the necessary materials before the Court and also to file the statement of objections, so that the Court can look into the entire materials on record and to pass appropriate order on merits of the case. The State has filed detailed statement submitting that the victim’s statement has been recorded by the Police under Section 161 Cr. P.C. and the learned Jurisdictional Magistrate has recorded statement under Section 164 Cr. P.C. Apart from denying all the allegations made by the petitioner, the State has also raised two points questioning maintainability of the petition, firstly on the ground that the victim and her husband, against whom wild allegations have been made, have not been made as parties. Secondly, in criminal proceedings, the proceedings cannot be maintained or continued by the parties through Power of Attorney Holder, when no permission is sought or granted by the Court. It is contended in the statement of objections as well as in the argument by the learned Advocate General that the statement of the victim discloses the offences alleged against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 376, 504, 508, 506, and 354A of IPC
REFERENCES
This Article is written by Akanksha choudhary sti of RSLW college jaipur, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
0 Comments