Dismissed

Smt Zareena Haneef v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2024CRL.P/342/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a criminal petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. as not maintainable for directing police to provide CCTV footage, holding that a writ petition under Article 227 is the proper remedy for supervision of trial courts. The lawyer also added that the trial court must ensure the accused accesses the footage for defense.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as not maintainable; Trial Court directed to provide copy of DVD for defense purposes.

Smt Zareena Haneef Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

NC: 2024:KHC:3237 CRL.P No. 342 of 2024

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 342 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT ZAREENA HANEEF W/O MOHAMMED HANEEF AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT ALANGAR ABBAS SAW MILLS, MUDABIDRI, MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRIT-574227

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI SRINIVASA D C, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by SUCHITRA M J Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PEENYA POLICE BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560001

¶15

SMT NIKITHA K JAIN D/O KANTHARAJAIAH AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, R/AT NO.65, SRI JINA, 2ND CROSS, KANVA GARDEN LAYOUT, NEAR APMC MARKET, DASANAPURA BENGALURU RURAL-562123

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1)

¶18

¶19

¶20

NC: 2024:KHC:3237 CRL.P No. 342 of 2024

¶21

CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 PEENYA POLICE TO PROVIDE THE DVDs OF C.C. TV FOOTAGE UNDER P.R.NO.32/2023 (P.F.NO.13/2021 AND P.F.NO.22/2021) SUBMITTED IN C.C.NO.8618/2021 ON THE FILE OF M.M.T.C.-III, BENGALURU TO THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 AT FREE OF COST AS MANDATORITY REQUIRED U/S 207 OF CR.P.C., ECT.,

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Office has raised objections regarding maintainability of the petition.

¶25

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that there is procedural error committed by the Magistrate while conducting the trail. Petitioner ought to have filed a writ petition for issuing writ of mandamus under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein this Court has superintendent power over the trial Courts. However, the present criminal petition filed under 482 of Cr.P.C., is not maintainable.

¶26

In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed as not maintainable.

¶27

However, the order sheet reveals that the trial Court has directed the Investigating Officer to produce the DVD or CD said to be seized by the Police and there was also an order passed by the Magistrate to furnish copy, but it was not

¶28

NC: 2024:KHC:3237 CRL.P No. 342 of 2024

¶29

¶30

furnished. The trial Court proceeded to conduct the evidence of the prosecution, which is not correct.

¶31

Therefore, the trial Court shall provide a copy of the DVD,

¶32

etc., for the purpose of taking defence. There shall not be any procedural error in conducting the trial, as such there is a guarantee vested to the petitioner - accused to take defence under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶33

Sd/JUDGE

¶34

VK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Smt Zareena Haneef v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Zareena Haneef v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ghouse Mohammedeen Vs State

Sri H B Harish Vs State of Karnataka by

Narayanagowda Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Syed Khamar @ Syed Khamar Pasha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Jagadish S M Vs State by Byatarayanapura

Mahesh @ Mahesha. M Vs State by Chamarajnagar Town Ps