Karnataka High Court
Smt Nisha S Kumar vs The Govenment Of Karnataka on 17 July, 2017
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION No.58589 OF 2015(GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN :
Smt.Nisha S.Kumar,
Aged 39 years,
W/o.Shailesh Kumar,
D/o.Narsidas Bhupatkar,
No.302, Deccan Chambers,
136, J.S.S.Road,
Mumbai - 400 004.
Permanent address at:
Shagil Precision India,
Nithyanand Nagar,
Mangalore - 574 160. ... Petitioner
(By Sri M.T.Nanaiah, Senior Advocate for
Sri Vishnu Hegde, Advocate)
AND:
1. The Government of Karnataka,
Represented by Chief Secretary,
Vidhana Soudha, Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Road,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2. The Director General of Police
& Inspector General of Police,
Nrupathunga Road,
Corporation Circle,
Bengaluru - 560 001.
2
3. The Commissioner of Police,
Mangalore City,
State Bank Circle,
Mangalore - 575 001.
4. Shri Shailesh Kumar,
Age: 47 years,
S/o.Late A.Janardhan Achar,
AT: Shagil Precision India,
Door NO.2-331/6A,
Nithyanand Nagar,
Mangalore - 574 160. ...Respondents
(By Smt.Prathima Honnapura, AGA for R1 to R3)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of mandamus to
consider the representations dated 1.10.2015 and 29.10.2015
by the R1 and R2 i.e., Annexuers A and B and direct them to
assign the investigation and to report by the Central Bureau of
Investigation or by the Central Investigation Department on all
complaints and in registered Crime Nos. 131/2013 dated
18.9.2013 and Crime No.168/2015 dated 15.09.2014 both are
registered at Mangalore East Police Station; Crime No.111/2014,
dated 16.05.2014 registered at Mangalore South Police Station;
Crime No.111/2015 dated 12.03.2015 registered at Mangalore
Rural Police Station; Crime No.308/2014 and etc.
This writ petition, coming on for hearing on I.As., this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
Though the matter is listed for hearing on I.A.s, I have taken up the matter for final disposal with the consent of both the learned advocates.
3
2. Sri M.T.Nanaiah, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Vishnu Hegde submits that the fourth respondent, who is the husband of the petitioner, has forged her signature and has withdrawn `21.00 lakhs from her account. He submits that even the Vigilance Department of Syndicate Bank has given the report to that effect. He submits that the fourth respondent has also got the telephone transferred from the name of the petitioner to his name, again by forging her signature. This is clearly discernible from the report of the B.S.N.L.
3. The learned Senior Counsel submits that though the petitioner has sought the investigation by Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) or by the Central Investigation Department, the petitioner would be content, if the investigation is ordered by the Central Crime Branch (C.C.B.). He submits that the C.C.B. has the network all over the State. He submits that as the respondent No.4 is a very influential man, the petitioner being a lady, is finding it difficult to get fair treatment at the hands of the regular Police. He submits that though the fourth respondent has defrauded the petitioner, the Police have filed 'B' report. He submits that the respondent No.4 has been threatening the petitioner.
4
4. Smt.Pratima Honnapura, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submits that the investigation is completed and that the report thereon is also filed. She submits that 'B' false report is filed and that the petitioner has not raised any challenge to the same. He submits that there are no allegations of malafides against the investigating officer and that this case does not call for any investigation by the C.C.B.
5. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. It is trite that it is the prerogative of the State to decide as to which matter is to be investigated by which agency. It is only in the rarest of the rare cases that the special investigation by a particular agency can be ordered. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB vs. DAVINDER PAL SINGH BHULLAR AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2012 SC 364 has this to say in para 48 of its decision:
"48. Thus, in view of the above, it is evident that a constitutional court can direct the CBI to investigate into the case provided the court after examining the allegations in the complaint reaches a conclusion that the complainant could make out prima facie, a case against the accused. However, 5 the person against whom the investigation is sought, is to be impleaded as a party and must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. CBI cannot be directed to have a roving inquiry as to whether a person was involved in the alleged unlawful activities. The court can direct CBI investigation only in exceptional circumstances where the court is of the view that the accusation is against a person who by virtue of his post could influence the investigation and it may prejudice the cause of the complainant, and it is necessary so to do in order to do complete justice and make the investigation credible."
6. Following the aforesaid decision, I decline to direct that one more investigation be made by the C.C.B. The petitioners' remedies would be (i) filing a private complaint making use of the report said to have been prepared by the Vigilance Departments of the Syndicate Bank and of B.S.N.L, (ii) to file protest application and (iii) to press 173(8) of Cr.P.C. into motion, under which, power of Police to conduct further investigation even after laying the final report is recognized.
7. This petition is rejected reserving the liberty to the petitioner to resort to initiation of the appropriate proceedings. 6
8. At this juncture, Sri Nanaiah submits that liberty be reserved to the petitioner to approach the higher authorities in the Police Department. She can always exercise such a liberty, if she has it in law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-