IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.53914/2013 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
MANJUNATHA S/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS NO.670, RAJANNA BUILDING MUNESHWARA BLOCK, 3RD CROSS PIPELINE ROAD T.DASARAHALLI BENGALURU – 560 057 … PETITIONER (BY SRI M.J.ALVA , ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE PEENYA POLICE STATION PEENYA BENGALURU – 560 057 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001 4. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE AHT UNIT, CID PALACE ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 5. THE PRESIDENT CHILD WELFARE COMMITTEE-II BENGALURU DISTRICT BENGALURU … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR A.PATIL, AGA FOR R1 TO R5) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE RESPONDENT NO.5 UNDER SECTION 33 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE ACT INITIATED PURSUANT TO THE REPORT MADE BY RESPONDENT NO.4 AS PER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.5 ON 29.10.2013 (ANNEXURE-F) AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri M.J.Alva, learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Sri Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for quashing of the proceedings initiated against the him under Section 33 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2000 (‘the Act’ for short).
4. When the matter was taken up today, Sri Vijaya Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate while inviting the attention of this Court to the objections filed on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that the son of the petitioner was missing. During the course of investigation, he was found out and custody of the son has been handed over to the petitioner.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that initiation of the proceedings in the facts situation of the case against the petitioner under Section 33 of the Act amounts to abuse of process of law.
In view of the aforesaid submission, taken into account that the petitioner himself had initiated to trace out his missing son, pursuant to which, he was found out and custody was handed over to the petitioner, the initiation of the proceedings under Section 33 of the Act cannot held to be justified against the petitioner, who happens to be father of the child. Accordingly, the proceedings against the petitioner under Section 33 of the Act are hereby quashed and the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE LB