DEEPAK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 28-12-2007 in CC No. 584 of 2007 passed by JMFC, IV Court at Belgaum insofar as it relates to not initiating proceedings or action against respondents 5 to 7 and not awarding any compensation, for a writ of mandamus to initiate appropriate action against respondents 5 to 7 and for payment of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- and more to each of the petitioners for violation of their fundamental rights. On 26-10-2006 the driver of the bus bearing No. KA-22-F-909 by name Suresh Antakannavar lodged a complaint with respondent 6-Police against the petitioners and the same came to be registered in Crime No. 62 of 2006 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 341, 307, 353, 427 and 109 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 2(1) of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981. In the complaint it is alleged that the petitioners/accused caused damage to the bus by throwing stones, injury to a passenger and assaulted the driver. On the same day respondent 6-Police arrested the petitioners and produced them before the jurisdictional Magistrate on 27-10-2006 at 12.30 a.m. with remand application. Accordingly the jurisdictional Magistrate remanded the petitioners to judicial custody and directed respondent 6-Police to give explanation for the delay in producing the accused before the Court. Again on 24-11-2006 the petitioners were produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate with handcuff with remand application. The jurisdictional Magistrate extended the judicial custody upto 7-12-2006 and directed the Investigation Officer to submit explanation with regard to handcuffing of the petitioners. Respondent 7 submitted explanation on 13-10-2007 as per Annexure-E inter alia contending that the petitioners tried to escape and therefore they were handcuffed. It is further stated that before producing the petitioners before the Court, when respondent 7 tried to remove the handcuffs, petitioners suddenly entered the Court Hall and there was no intentional lapse on their part. To this explanation petitioners filed their objections denying the explanation given by respondent 7. After hearing both the parties the jurisdictional Magistrate passed the impugned order on 28-12-2007 holding that "it is established by the admission of escort party that the accused were brought to the Court with handcuffs from the Central Prison. Therefore the fact that the accused were brought from the jail to the Court in handcuff is amply proved". The jurisdictional Magistrate rejected the prayer of the petitioners for payment of compensation, holding an enquiry and reserved liberty to the petitioners to work out their remedy before the appropriate forum. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioners filed a memo dated 19-9-2013 reporting the death of petitioner 2. No steps are taken and as such the petition is abated insofar as petitioner 2 is concerned.

(3.) Heard arguments on both the side and perused the entire writ papers.