VEERABHADRAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two criminal petitions presumably under S.482 of the CrlPC are directed against the two orders made by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shorapur, refusing to discharge Veerabhadrappa (A2) in two cases instituted upon police reports.

(2.) The case against the petitioner Veerabhadrappa (A2) is that two FIRs were instituted against him and a few others which are FIR. 249 of 1976 dt.24-6-1976 and FIR. 251 of 1976 dt.26-6-1976. In the first case it was contended that A2 being Dalpati of the village appointed under S.9 of the Mysore Village Defence Parties Act 1964, along with others went to the hutments belonging to the two complainants. Presumably A2 was under the impression that there was encroachment over the Govt land and as such he asked them to remove the portion of the hutment causing encroachment. The FIR case was that the accused armed with sticks and other weapons had gone to the place, abused the complainants and also beat them. Thereafter the encroached part of the hutment was forcibly removed. Thus a case was registered against A2 and others for the offences under Ss.147, 342, 427 and 323 of the IPC. It was a summons case and under Chap.XX of the Code the learned Magistrate proceeded to enquire about the charges. An oral plea was taken before the learned Magistrate that A2 was the Dalpati and as such under S 13 of the Mysore Village Defence Parties Act, 1964 previous sanction of the Superintendent of Police was required and as such the prosecution could not proceed. The learned Magistrate dealt with that plea arid came to the conclusion that the plea of previous sanction by the Superintendent of Police was not made out and as such he called upon the accused to present themselves before the Court and proposed to record their plea. Against that order CrP.31 of 1977 is filed under Sec.482.

(3.) The other FIR case pertained to these very accused including the petitioner (A2) .The FIR was dt.26-6-1976 and it was alleged that A2 being Dalpati of the village along with his brother A1 went to the house of the complainant and asked him to remove the cattle shed presumably because the Dalpati thought that there was encroachment on Govt land. The FIR also stated that the said cattle shed caused obstruction to a passage. Thereafter, A2 and his brother forcibly removed the cattle shed and for that the police report was instituted for the offences under Ss.147 and 427 of the IPC. The learned Magistrate treating the case as a summons case, proceeded under Chap. XX of the Code and on behalf of A2 a similar oral plea was taken that he was the Dalpati appointed under the Act and for his prosecution previous sanction of the Superintendent of Police was needed. It was requested that the prosecution itself could not be instituted for want of that sanction. The plea however did not prevail before the learned Magistrate and he fixed a date for appearance of the accused and for recording their plea.