High CourtsSingle Bench(2012) 09 KAR CK 0171

Smt. Venkatamma vs The State of Karnataka and Others

Karnataka High Court · Decided on 3 September 2012

HON’BLE JUDGES
Mohan Shantanagoudar, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 27455 of 2012 (GM-Police)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 266 words

Mohan Shantanagoudar

1.

Petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondents to conduct further investigation in crime No. 3/2912 of M.K. Doddi Police Station, Channapatna Taluk, Ramanagara District and to submit the charge sheet afresh.

According to the petitioner, the investigation is not properly conducted in Crime No. 3/2012 registered in M.K. Doddi Police Station, Channapatna Taluk.

The records reveal that the petitioner has lodged the First Information on 4.1.2012 making certain allegations. The main allegation is that Komari Gowda and his relatives namely Manu @ Meharish, Ravi, Shambhu Gowda, etc., trespassed into the house of the petitioner and have stolen certain articles as found in the First Information. It is further alleged that the portion of the farm house of the petitioner-complainant is burnt. The said complaint was registered in Crime No. 3/2012 of M.K. Doddi Police Station, Channapatna Taluk for the offences punishable u/s 427, 435, 380 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. The police after investigation, laid the charge sheet as per Annexure-D, dated 16.2.2012 for the offences punishable u/s 427, 435, 380 r/w. Section 34 of IPC. The charge sheet is filed against nine accused. The statements of 9 witnesses were recorded. Certain articles were seized.

2.

It appears, investigation was done in accordance with law. If the petitioner still feels that the investigation is not done in accordance with law, it is open for her to take such steps as are open to her in law for getting the appropriate relief. For the said purpose, the petitioner cannot rush to this Court directly.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands dismissed.