Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1147 (KAR)

Jagnnath v. State of Karnataka

2015-09-30

A.V.CHANDRASHEKARA

body2015
ORDER : A.V. Chandrashekara, J. 1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and perused the records. Petitioners are accused 8 and 7 in Crime No. 131 of 2012, registered by Market Police Station, Bidar. Offences alleged against the petitioners and other accused are punishable under Sections 167, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472, 473, 474, 120-B, 420, 447 and 506 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 2. Present petition is filed requesting the Court to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No. 131 of 2012. 3. Matter is yet to be investigated and there has been an order of stay right from on 19-11-2012 till this day. As a result of the same, respondent 5-Police has not been able to conduct any investigation. Some documents have been produced to show that the second petitioner has drafted the Will. On the basis of the said Will, the first petitioner has effected the mutation and the same has been confirmed by the Assistant Commissioner. Nothing come in the way of petitioners for producing the documents before the I.O. which are in their possession. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa and Another AIR 2002 SC 671 : 2002 Cri. L.J. 998 (SC) : (2002) 3 SCC 89 , held that inherent jurisdiction under the section though wide has to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with caution. 4. Even otherwise, the annexures appended to the petition filed underSection 482 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 should not be looked into till they are tested in evidence as the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh v. Awadh Kishore Gupta and Others, AIR 2004 SC 517 : 2004 SCC (Cri.) 353 : 2004 Cri. L.J. 598 (SC) : (2004) 1 SCC 691 . 5. In this view of the matter, no good grounds are made out to interfere with the case registered by respondent 5-Police. Accordingly, petition is liable to be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has requested this Court to give some breathing time so that the petitioners could approach the concern Court seeking anticipatory bail. Hence, it is requested to issue direction to respondent 5-Police not to arrest the petitioners for a period of 30 days so that petitioners could approach the concerned Court seeking anticipatory bail. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has requested this Court to give some breathing time so that the petitioners could approach the concern Court seeking anticipatory bail. Hence, it is requested to issue direction to respondent 5-Police not to arrest the petitioners for a period of 30 days so that petitioners could approach the concerned Court seeking anticipatory bail. Accordingly, following order is passed: ORDER Accordingly, petition is dismissed. Notwithstanding the dismissal of the petition, respondent 5-Police shall not arrest the petitioners for a period of 25 (twenty-five) days only from today so that the petitioners could approach the concern Court seeking anticipatory bail. Notwithstanding the dismissal of this petition, they can approach this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. provided an adverse final report is filed by the Police.