Tousif S/O Shahajan Kamate vs The Superintendent Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 4228 Kant

                                 1




                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                        DHARWAD BENCH

              DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2022

                             BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

            WRIT PETITION NO. 107106 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

TOUSIF S/O SHAHAJAN KAMATE
AGE: 30 YEARS,OCC: SEWING MACHINE REPAIR,
R/O: NAMAJMAL SANKESHWAR,
TQ: HUKKERI,DIST: BELAGAVI.
                                                      ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. ANIL KALE., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
     BELAGAVI.
2.   THE DY.S.P.
     GOKAK POLICE STATION, GOKAK.
3.   THE C.P.I.
     HUKKERI POLICE STATION,HUKKERI.
4.   THE P.S.I.
     SANKESHWAR POLICE STATION,
     SANKESHWAR.

                                                 ...RESPONDENT'S

(BY SRI. RAMESH CHIGARI, HCGP FOR RESPONDENTS)

       THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 226 AND 227 OF
CR.P.C. THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER
DATED 30/5/2012 BEARING NO.1914/2012 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-B.
                               2




      THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS
DAY, THECOURTMADE THE FOLLOWING:


                           ORDER

1. The case was registered against the petitioner by the

Respondent - police in crime No.201/2010 for the offence

punishable under section 78 (3) of the Karnataka Police Act

(For short the Act) and thereafter charge sheet was filed

against the petitioner before the learned Magistrate for the

aforesaid offence which, is pending consideration in CC No.

439 of 2010.

2. When the proceedings was pending before the learned

Magistrate, the second respondent on the recommendation

of the fourth respondent opened a rowdy sheet against the

petitioner on the ground that the case in crime No.201 of

2010 for the offence punishable under section 78(3) of the

Act and Crime No.112/2011 for the offence punishable under

section 110(E) & (G) of Cr.P.C. are pending against the

petitioner. Taking exception to the same the said petition is

filed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that

the impugned order requires to be set aside since the

petitioner has been acquitted in CC.No.439/2010 (crime No.

201 of 2010) dated 7/2/2013 passed by the JMFC,

Sankeshwar and also he submits that the bond furnished by

the petitioner for good behavior had expired as on the date

of passing of the impugned order.

4. On the other hand, learned HCGP appearing for the

respondent-State submits that the impugned order was

passed taking into account that the crime No. 201 of 2010 is

pending consideration against the petitioner for the offence

punishable under section 78 (3) of Act. He further submits

that the impugned order passed by the second respondent is

perfectly legal and the same does not warrant any

interference.

5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned

counsel for the parties.

6. Perusal of the judgment passed in CC No.439 of 2010

discloses that the petition has been acquitted for the offence

punishable under section 78 (3) of the Act. The validity of the

bond furnished by the petitioner for keeping good behavior

under section 110 of Cr.P.C has expired. Hence, reopening of

rowdy sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences

is not sustainable in law. According, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) The writ petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned order dated 30/5/2012 passed

by the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-B is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE Vb/-