POOJARI KRISHNAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been preferred by the parents of a minor girl (name not mentioned to avoid identity), who had been allegedly kidnapped on 29/8/2005. On the basis of a complaint lodged by her father on 15/9/2005, a case was registered against the suspected persons and investigation was taken up. It is stated that she was traced and was produced before the learned JMFC, Hoskote at 9. 30 p. m. , on 24/ 9/2005 in his home office. The grand parents of the victim (respondents 2 and 3) appeared and assuring that, they would take care of the victim girl, they took custody of the victim girl.

(2.) ON 7/10/2005, the complainant i. e. , the father of the victim girl filed an application for giving the custody of the victim girl to him. On the ground that the victim girl filed objections to that application and she was not inclined to go with her parents, an order was passed by the learned JMFC on 11/10/2005 directing that the victim girl be detained in the custody of WASI of Hoskote police Station. Later after hearing the parties, an order was passed on 11/11/2005 by the learned JMFC rejecting the application of the parents of the girl (revision petitioners ). Challenging the said order, the respondents 2 and 3 preferred Cri. R. P. No. 99/ 05. That was considered by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bangalore Rural District and he passed an order on 26/11/2005 directing that the victim girl be given to the custody of her maternal grand father and maternal grand mother i. e. , the respondents 2 and 3 herein. It is that order which has been challenged in this revision petition by the parents of the victim girl.

(3.) SRI. K, Varadarajan, leaned Counsel for the revision petitioners advances two points in support of his prayer for setting aside the order of the revisional Court. The first one is that the order passed by the learned JMFC was an interlocutory order and therefore in view of the provisions of section 397 (2) of the Code of Criminal procedure, the learned Additional Sessions judge had no jurisdiction to set aside that order. The second point submitted by him is that the father of the victim girl (revision petitioner No. 1) is the proper guardian in the matter and since the victim girl is a minor, the custody of the minor girl ought to have been given to the revision petitioner no. 1.