IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF MARCH, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5815/2018 BETWEEN:
THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR TOWN POLICE STATION BANTWALA REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OFFICE HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 1.
(BY SRI. S.T. NAIK., HCGP) AND:
1. PUSHPARAJ S/O PARAMESHWARA GOWDA AGED 35 YEARS R/AT HANUMAN TEMPLE SAJIPA MUNNOOR TEMPLE BANTWAL TALUK – 574 211.
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE TAHASILDAR PUTTUR TALUK – 574 201.
... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED:25.04.2018 PASSED THE III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, D.K., MANGALORE IN CRL.RP.NO.23/2018.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned HCGP appearing for petitioner and perused the records.
2. Order dated 25.04.2018 passed by III Additional District and Sessions Judge, D.K., Mangalore setting aside the order dated 16.02.2018 passed by the jurisdictional Executive Magistrate in exercise of the power vested under Section 111 Cr.P.C. calling upon first respondent herein to show cause as to why he should not be called upon to execute bond for the sum specified thereunder to bind him to maintain peace and harmony has been set aside.
3. Having heard learned Advocates appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, it would disclose that Taluka Executive Magistrate, based on a report of second respondent herein had issued show cause notice to first respondent herein as to why he should not execute a bond specified thereunder to maintain peace.
4. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that petition filed by petitioner against second respondent – State of Karnataka is not maintainable and petition is liable to be dismissed against second respondent herein. That apart, learned Sessions Judge taking taken note of the material placed on record, has observed that requirement of exercising jurisdiction under Section 111 Cr.P.C. would be subject to due satisfaction of the Taluka Executive Magistrate. In other words, it has been held there should be independent application of mind by the Taluka Executive Magistrate by evaluating the material available before him to exercise power under Section 111 Cr.P.C. to call upon a person to execute bond for maintaining peace. In the absence of such due satisfaction being recorded and supplant his opinion, report of a third party cannot be looked into, as it would not stand the requirement of Section 111 Cr.P.C. It is for this precise reason, learned Sessions Judge has rightly set aside the order passed by the jurisdictional Taluka Magistrate . I find no good ground to entertain this petition. accordingly, it is dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE *sp