Remanded

Sri Sathyajit Surathkal v. the Special Executive

Karnataka HC6 Dec 2019CRL.RP/529/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a revision petition under Sections 397 and 401 Cr.PC, the High Court observed that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing before an order was passed under Section 110 Cr.PC. Consequently, the Court directed respondents to issue a show-cause notice, allow the petitioner to seek and submit documents for an explanation, and pass a speaking order within four months before the pet

What did the court decide?

The impugned order was treated as a show-cause notice; proceedings remanded to the respondents to allow the petitioner to file an explanation and respondents to pass a speaking order within four month

Sri Sathyajit Surathkal Vs the Special… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI

¶6

Crl.RP No.529/2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Sri Sathyajit Surathkal s/o Sri Vasudeva Aged about 49 years ‘Shree Shakthi’ Subhashithnagar Surathkal Town Mangaluru-575001. … Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri Aruna Shyam M, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

The Special Executive Magistrate & Assistant Commissioner of Police (Law & Order), Mangaluru D K – 575001.

¶12

The Station House Officer Surathkal Police, Surathkal Mangaluru, D K – 575001. ... Respondents

¶13

(By Sri Rohith B J, HCGP)

¶14

This petition is filed under Section 397 R/W 401 Cr.PC praying to set aside the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 8.3.2019 bearing No.SEM/1030/MAM.NA/2019 on the file of the Special Executive Magistrate and Asst. Commissioner (Law and

¶15

¶16

Order) Hassan thereby directing the petitioner to appeal before him on 18.3.2019 and all further proceeding pursuant thereto.

¶17

This petition is coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:-

¶18

ORDER

¶19

In the instant revision petition, petitioner has

¶20

sought for the following reliefs:

¶21

“a) Call for records and set aside the impugned order passed by the first respondent dated 08.03.2019 bearing No.SEM/1030/Mam.Na/2019 on the file of Special Executive Magistrate and Asst. Commissioner (Law and Order), Hassan, thereby directing the petitioner to appear before him on 18.03.2019 and all further proceedings pursuant thereto and

¶22

b) Grant such other and further reliefs as deems fit in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.”

¶23

Perusal of the order dated 8.3.2019, it is

¶24

evident that petitioner has not been provided an opportunity and it is not disputed. In the absence of giving opportunity, respondents proceeded to pass the impugned order under Section 110(e)(g) of Cr.PC.

¶25

In view of the facts and circumstance, document No.1 dated 18.3.2019 is treated as show

¶26

¶27

cause notice to the petitioner. Further, respondents are hereby directed to furnish requisite documents to be sought by the petitioner so as to file effective reply/explanation. In this regard, petitioner is hereby directed to seek necessary documents, if any, from the respondents so as to enable him to furnish effective reply/explanation. Thereafter, petitioner is hereby directed to furnish his explanation along with documents, if any, to the respondents so as to pass detail order. Respondents are hereby directed to pass a speaking order after due consideration of the contentions raised by the petitioner in his explanation/reply. Accordingly, document No.1 is treated as show cause notice to the petitioner.

¶28

The above exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶29

Petition stands disposed of.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

Bkm

Sri Sathyajit Surathkal v. the Special Executive

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sathyajit Surathkal v. the Special Executive

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

National Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Chethana Suresh Gaikwad

Surekha W/O Late Shrishail Bhokare Vs the Divisional Controller Nwkrtc

Shri. B.N. Manjappa S/O Late B. Ningappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Drugs and Pharamaceuticals Vs Union of India Rep by Its Secy

Sri. Mohammed Idris @ Itli Idris Vs Abdul Hakeem @ Sardar

M/S T T K Prestige Ltd. Vs the Union of India Reptd by Its Finance Secretary