CHAMPABAI Vs. M GIRIJAPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Inspector of Police, H and B Squad, COD. , had filed a charge-sheet against several accused persons including the respondents 1 to 3 on the complaint of this petitioner in Cr. No. 138/92 alleging that all the accused persons were responsible for the custodial death of her son Kamalakar and causing disappearance of evidence, punishable under Ss. 120-B, 365, 368, 465, 506, 342, 344, 302, 201, 107, 119, 202 r/w S. 511 and S. 217 of the IPC. These respondents are accused Nos. 16, 17 and 18. Respondent No. 1 is the Circle Inspector of Police. Respondent No. 2 is the Superintendent of Police and respondent No. 3 is the DIG of Police, Gulbarga Dist. After the case was committed, the learned Sessions Judge heard the arguments on both sides and held that the charge came to be filed without obtaining sanction to prosecute them as required under S. 197, Cr. P. C. and therefore, they were discharged. Being aggrieved by that order dt. 18-10-1997 passed by the Prl. Sessions Judge, Gulbarga, in SC 105/92 discharging these respondents, the complainant/petitioner herein preferred this petition.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel Sri S. Mahesh for the petitioner and the learned counsel Sri B. Billappa Associates for R-1, Sri C. V. Nagesh, learned counsel for R-2 and 3 and Sri. S. S. Koti Addl. S. P. P. for R-4.

(3.) THE principal argument was submitted by Sri C. V. Nagesh which has been adopted by the other counsel and they also submitted their further arguments. At the very outset Sri. C. V. Nagesh contended that this petition is filed by the complainant and not by the State and the charge-sheet was filed by the police. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed in limine.