Writ Petition No. 52342 of 2016 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10765 WP No. 52342 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 52342 OF 2016 (GM-RES) BETWEEN SRI B R VENUGOPAL S/O LATE SRI B RAMU, AGED 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION:DY.S.P, (ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU) BENGALURU R/AT #682, 17TH E CROSS, INDIRANAGAR, 2ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560038 ..PETITIONER Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (BY SRI. NITHIN GOWDA K.C., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR P., ADVOCATE ) AND 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 2. DIRECTOR GENERAL & INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (HQRS) NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10765 WP No. 52342 of 2016 3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560001 4. KARNATAKA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS ACTING CHAIRPERSON 5. SRI M.S RAJASHEKHAR S/O SURYAKANTH, AGED 52 YEARS, R/AT NO.148, 4TH CROSS, G.K.W.LAYOUT, VIJAYANAGARA, BENGALURU-560040 6. SRI AJAY UPADHYA S/O LAKSHMI NARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT NO.6, KALPATJARU APARTMENT, 13TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560003 RESPONDENTS
Legal Reasoning
(BY SRI. MANJUNATH RAYAPPA., AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. VIDUR NAIR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. M.G. SATEESHA., ADVOCATE FOR R5; V/O DATED 14.2.2019 PETITION IS DISMISSED AGAISNT R6) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER DT.30.6.2016 PASSED BY THE R-4 KARNATAKA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION IN H.R.C.NO.352/2014 AS PER ANNEX-V. AND ETC. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10765 WP No. 52342 of 2016 THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS AND HAVING BEEN RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 03.03.2025, THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ CAV ORDER 1. The Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: a. b. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order-dated Respondent 30.06.2016 No.4/Karnataka State Human Rights Commission in H.R.C.No.351 of 2014 as per Annexure-V to the writ petition; & passed the by Issue such other writ, order or direction as deemed fit in the circumstances of the case. 2. The petitioner claims to be a Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau as on the date of filing of the petition. Between the years 2011 and 2013, he was employed as a Police Inspector, Special Enquiries at Central Crime Branch (CCB), Bengaluru. When he was entrusted with the investigation in the matter concerning bomb blast at BJP office, Malleshwaram, Bengaluru. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10765 WP No. 52342 of 2016 3. In the course of his investigation, while he was at Madiwala office on 3.5.2013, he received credible information from secret sources that two individuals falsely claiming to be representatives of Sri.G.Parameshwar, a Congress leader and Sri.K.Eshwarappa, former Deputy Chief Minister of Karnataka were duping prominent businessmen in Malleshwaram area, by calling them and demanding for donations to party fund. 4. The petitioner states that he has informed this to his superior officer, the then Joint Police Commissioner Crimes (East) over telephone and obtained permission to go and investigate the matter. The petitioner claimed that thereafter he rushed to the spot along with two punch witnesses and six other officers. On arriving at the spot, he found respondents No.5 and 6 sitting in a Santro car bearing No.KA-04-Z-8682 who on enquiry revealed their names to be Sri.M.S.Rajshekhar S/o - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10765 WP No. 52342 of 2016 Suryakanth and Sri.Ajay Upadhyaya S/o Lakshminarayana Upadhyaya. 5. He alleges that respondents No.5 and 6 admitted taking advantage of the elections and were calling prominent businessmen for donations. An amount of Rs.1,80,000/- in cash, one Carbon mobile phone, one Samsung mobile phone, one Nokia mobile phone were seized from Sri.Rajshekhar and Rs.1,70,000/-, one LG mobile phone and the Santro car were seized from Sri.Ajay Upadhyaya. 6. The petitioner further claims that he visited the jurisdictional police station, namely Malleshwaram Police Station he lodged a complaint at 11.15 p.m. for commission of offences under Section 171(E), 419 and 420 of the IPC, which was registered as Crime No.133 of 2013. 7. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Crimes) is stated to have issued a memo of transfer of the case to the petitioner pursuant to said instruction, a memo also came to be issued by the Joint - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10765 WP No. 52342 of 2016 Commissioner of Police on 04.05.2013 transferring the investigation in Crime No.133 of 2013 from the Malleshwaram Police Station to the petitioner. It is in pursuance thereof the petitioner commenced his investigation. 8. Respondents No.4 and 5 applied for and were granted bail and thereafter started hampering the investigation. They had also submitted a representation to the higher-ups of the petitioner that the petitioner had violated their human rights. Taking note of the allegation, the Commissioner of Police had ordered an enquiry by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Central Crime Branch who submitted a report on 09.11.2013 that Petitioner was not guilty of any wrongdoing. 9. In the meanwhile, the Petitioner completed the investigation and filed a Charge Sheet in CC No.13294 of 2013 on 23.08.2013 before the I Addl.C.M.M Bengaluru. During the pendency of the said proceedings Respondent No.2-the Director - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10765 WP No. 52342 of 2016 General and Inspector General of Police had filed a complaint before the Human Rights Commission against the petitioner, alleging that the petitioner had arrested Respondents No.5 and 6 without jurisdiction and authority of law, without FIR and without investigating, he had filed a complaint by himself. 10. In pursuance thereto, Respondent No.4-the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission registered a complaint in H.R.C. No.351/2014 and commenced enquiry directing an officer not below the rank of the Deputy Commissioner of Police to submit an action taken report within four weeks. 11. In pursuance thereof, Additional Commissioner of Police (CCB) had issued notice to the petitioner and the other members of the raiding party and recorded their statements. The Deputy Commissioner of Police had issued a report stating that there was no written record of the Joint Commissioner transferring the investigation of Crime No.133 of 2013 from - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10765 WP No. 52342 of 2016 Malleshwaram Police Station to the petitioner. Respondent No.4 passed an order on 03.06.2016 directing Respondent No.1 to initiate Disciplinary Enquiry against the petitioner as also to make payment of compensation of a sum of Rs.10,000/- to Respondent No.5. It is challenging the same, that the petitioners are before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 12. The submission of Sri.Nithin Gowda.K.C., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that; 12.1. The petitioner is acted in a proper manner. It is on receiving secret information that the petitioner had visited the spot and seized the material as indicated supra. Thereafter, the petitioner had lodged a complaint with the jurisdiction of police authorities. It is the Joint Commissioner who had directed the petitioner to conduct the investigation which was so conducted by the petitioner and charge sheet laid. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10765 WP No. 52342 of 2016 12.2. These actions had been taken by the petitioner in accordance with law and as per the instructions issued from time to time, no fault could be found with the action of the petitioners, as done by the Human Rights Commission. The finding of the Human Rights Commission and the penalty which has been imposed is therefore required to be quashed. 13. Sri.Manjunath Rayappa., learned AGA for respondents No.1 to 3 would submit that the Human Rights Commission has considered all the relevant aspects and has come to a rightful conclusion. The Director General of Police having filed a complaint, proper enquiry has been conducted by the Assistant Commission of Police. The statements of the Deputy Commissioner of Police have been recorded and no fault can be found with the order passed by the Human Rights Commission. Similarly, is a submission made by learned counsel for respondents No.4 and 5. - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10765 WP No. 52342 of 2016 14. Heard Sri.Nithin Gowda.K.C, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Manjunath Rayappa., learned AGA appearing for respondents No.1 to 3, Sri.Vidur Nair., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 and Sri.M.G.Sateesha., learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5. Perused papers. 15. The short point that would arise for consideration is: “Whether the order passed by the Respondent No.4-Human Rights Commission is proper and correct or would require any intervention at the hands of this Court”. 16. The facts have been detailed hereinabove. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was working as a Police Inspector, Special Enquiries at the Central Crime Branch, Bengaluru at his Madiwala office. The information which has been received was as regards an occurrence in Malleshwaram. The petitioner, without informing the Malleshwaram Police has travelled from Madiwala to Malleswaram and has seized certain monies, phones and the vehicle from - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:10765 WP No. 52342 of 2016 Respondents No.5 and 6. It is also alleged that he took the Respondents No.5 and 6 to the Malleshwaram Police Station while lodging the complaint. 17. The fact that the petitioner took them to the Police Station would categorically indicate that he has virtually arrested them and taken them to the Malleshwaram Police Station inasmuch as without such arrest, the petitioner could not have taken them to the Malleshwaram Police Station. This being the first of the transgressions on the part of the petitioner. 18. The second transgression is of the petitioner contending that the Joint Commissioner of Police had transferred the investigation in Crime No.133 of 2013 to the petitioner. The petitioner himself being a complainant, it being admitted that he had lodged the complaint at 11.15 P.M., could not have been the Investigating Officer. Even if the Joint Commissioner of Police had directed him to investigate without - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:10765 WP No. 52342 of 2016 knowing that he had lodged a complaint, it was for the petitioner to have declined the same. 19. Be that as it may, the petitioner did not do so and continued to investigate. It is only on the complaint being filed to the Human Rights Commission that it became clear as to why it did, since the Deputy Commissioner of Police had categorically stated that there was no record of the Joint Commissioner transferring the investigation of Crime No.133 of 2013 from Malleshwaram Police Station to the petitioner. In view of the said report by a responsible officer like the Deputy Commissioner of Police, it is clear that the petitioner had on his own accord not only travelled from Madiwala to Malleshwaram without informing the Malleshwaram Police and had lodged a complaint with the Malleshwaram Police as a complainant and carried on investigation therein of his own accord without necessary permission or sanction from the Joint Commissioner. - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:10765 WP No. 52342 of 2016 20. The third infraction is by the petitioner having completed the investigation and having submitted a charge sheet without being authorized to do so. These are all aspects which have been taken into account by Respondent No.4- the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Commission has come to a conclusion that the petitioner had arrested Respondents No.5 and 6 without any warrant. The investigation which has been carried out imperils the personal liberty of the individuals, the action on part of the petitioner is not in accordance with law and had passed the impugned order. 21. For the reasons aforesaid, the reasoning of the Human Rights Commission, in my considered opinion is proper and correct and does not require any interference. The petition not making out any grounds stands dismissed. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE SR List No.: 4 Sl No.: 2