M R LOHITH MANOHAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case has called in question the order dated 09.03.2010 passed by the 10th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.2838/2010. THE order of the learned Magistrate reads thus:

(2.) HEARD Sri. G. Sukumaran, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Satish R. Girji, learned HCGP for the respondent State.

(3.) I have gone through the materials on record. On a careful scrutiny of the materials on record, it is seen that the order of the Supreme Court indicates that the learned Magistrate on his own directed for further investigation and therefore, the ruling cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the facts of this case on hand. Hence, I am of the opinion that the order of the learned Magistrate does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, as the application is filed before the charge sheet is filed under Section 173(8) Cr.P.C. and the order passed by the learned Magistrate directing the petitioner to submit himself to record the voice in order to compare to the voice already recorded, is neither illegal or perverse. Hence, the petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to present himself before the Court for complying the orders of the learned Magistrate failing which learned Magistrate is at liberty to take suitable steps in accordance with law.