In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged a prohibitory order passed under Section 144(3) Cr.P.C. The court held that as the impugned order had spent itself, no further consideration was required.
Writ petition dismissed as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI
WRIT PETITION No.9574 OF 2015 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
(BY SRI.PRASANNA DESHPANDE., ADVOCATE)
AND:
2
(BY SMT.A.R.SHARADAMBA., AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER NO. MAG(2) CR/453/2014-15(C1)89056 DATED 6-3-2015 VIDE ANNEXURE-A PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.2 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners have questioned the order dated: 06.03.2015 passed by the District Magistrate & Deputy Commissioner, Udupi District, Udupi.
Suffice it to note that exercising the power vested under Section 144 (3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, the District Magistrate & Deputy Commissioner, Udupi imposed prohibitory orders banning the first petitioner from entering into the Udupi District limits and participating in any Public Meetings/ Functions for a period of seven days
3
i.e., from 07th March 2015 to 13th March 2015. The prohibitory order has been challenged on several grounds and the learned counsel for the petitioners has urged several contentions.
Perused the writ papers and annexures with utmost care.
The order was passed by the District Magistrate & Deputy Commissioner of Udupi District, Udupi in the year 2015. Considering that the order impugned has spent itself, no further consideration is required in the writ petition.
Resultantly, the Writ Petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.
Sd/JUDGE
TKN
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Writ Petition survives since the impugned prohibitory order has spent itself.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri. Praveen Bhai Togadia
Baikady Suprasad Shetty
The State of Karnataka
The District Magistrate & Deputy Commissioners Udupi
The Superintendent of Police Udupi
Jyoti Mulimani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
