LAWS(KAR)-2012-9-215

NARENDRA D.S. Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY S.H.O. OF RAJAJINAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE CITY, REPTD. BY THE LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS, BANGALORE AND SRI. DHANANJAYA K.

Decided On September 26, 2012
Narendra D.S. Appellant
V/S
State Of Karnataka By S.H.O. Of Rajajinagar Police Station Bangalore City, Reptd. By The Learned State Public Prosecutor, High Court Buildings, Bangalore And Sri. Dhananjaya K. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON a complaint given by the petitioner, the jurisdictional police registered a case in Crime No. 63/2011 for the offences punishable under Section 406 and 420 of IPC. During the course of investigation, the police seized the vehicle Toyota Innova Car bearing Registration No. KA -53 -M -772. Now the investigation is completed and charge sheet is filed. In the meanwhile, the petitioner as well as 2nd respondent filed applications before the Jurisdictional Magistrate claiming custody of the vehicle in question. The Magistrate vide order dated 09.06.2011 passed the impugned order and the operative portion reads as under:

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the said order of the jurisdictional Magistrate, the petitioner filed Revision Petition in Crl.R.P. 205/2011 on the file of Fast Track Court at Bangalore. After hearing the parties, the Revision Court vide order dated 21.09.2011 dismissed the Revision Petition and confirmed the order passed by the jurisdictional Magistrate. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

(3.) BOTH the Courts below while passing impugned orders had taken care to protect the interest of the petitioner who claims to be the owner of the vehicle in question. The jurisdictional Magistrate directed the 2nd respondent to execute an indemnity bond for a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/ - and also furnish solvent surety for the like sum. These conditions imposed by the jurisdictional Magistrate, protect the interest of the petitioner. In the circumstances, I find no illegality or error in the impugned orders passed by the Courts below. Accordingly, the petition is hereby dismissed. Having regard to the nature of controversy between the parties, it is necessary that a direction be issued to the Jurisdictional Magistrate to expedite the matter and dispose of the entire case within a time frame of four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.