Karnataka High Court
Sri V Nagaraj vs State Of Karnataka on 21 July, 2017
Author: Aravind Kumar
Bench: Aravind Kumar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR
WRIT PETITION NO.29343 OF 2017
AND
WRIT PETITION NOS.32349-32350 OF 2017 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. Sri. V. Nagaraj
S/o Sri. Yaradappa
Aged about 53 years
Residing at: No.U 7
II Main Road, II Cross
Hanumanthapuram
Srirampuram
Bengaluru - 560 021
2. Sri. Gandhi N
S/o Sri. V. Nagaraj
Aged about 24 years
Residing at: No.U 7
II Main Road, II Cross
Hanumanthapuram
Srirampuram
Bengaluru - 560 021
3. Sri. Shastri N
S/o Sri. V. Nagaraj
Aged about 22 years
Residing at: No.U 7
2
II Main Road, II Cross
Hanumanthapuram
Srirampuram
Bengaluru - 560 021
...Petitioners
(By Sri. N. Ravindranath Kamath, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka
By Hennur Police Station
Balachandra Layout
Babusabpalya
Hennur Gardens
Bengaluru - 560 042
By its Police Inspector
2. State of Karnataka
By Srirampuram Police Station
Bengaluru - 560 021
By its Police Inspector
3. State of Karnataka
By Kengeri Police Station
Mysore Road
Bengaluru - 560 060
By its Police Inspector
4. State of Karnataka
Department of Home Affairs
'Vidhana Soudha'
Bengaluru - 560 001
Rep. by its Secretary
5. Union of India
Ministry of Home Affairs
North Block
3
Central Secretariat
New Delhi, Delhi -110 001
Rep. by its Secretary
6. Sri. N. Umesh
S/o Late Nanjappa
Aged about 45 years
Residing at: No.55
4th Cross, Anubhavnagar
Nagarbhavi Road
Bengaluru - 560 072
7. Sri. Chandrakumar
S/o late R. Srinivas
Major in age
Residing at: No.1019/A
2nd Main, Service Road
Vijayanagar
Bengaluru - 560 040
8. Sri. Muniraju B.C
S/o late Chennappa
Major in age
Residing at: No.116
1st Cross, Rajareshwari
Residency, Mudalapalya
Bengaluru - 560 091
9. Sri. S. Kalyan
S/o S. Srinivasamurthy
Major in age
Residing at No.2308
9th Block, II Stage
Nagarbhavi
Bengaluru - 560 072
4
10. Sri. Arun
S/o Narasimha Shetty T K
Major in age
Residing at: Door No.308
7th Block, II Stage
Nagarbhavi
Bengaluru - 560 072
11. Sri. Ahmed Pee
S/o Syed Peer
Major in age
Residing at: No.443/2
6th Cross, 1st Main Road
Yeshwantpur
Bengaluru - 560 022
12. Sri. B. K. Shivananda
S/o Krishnappa
Major in age
Residing at: No.2736/1
Kempapura village
Hebbal, Bengaluru
... Respondents
(By Sri. Rachaiah, HCGP for R1 to R4;
Sri. B.S. Guruswamy, Advocate for R5)
These Writ Petitions are filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to A. Order for
investigation and submission or report of all the cases viz.,
1. F.I.R. in Crime No.133/2017 dated 07.04.2017, on the
file of Hennur Police Station, Bengaluru, under Section
364A, 392 and 506 of IPC against one Saravana and
Praveena on the basis of the complaint lodged by one N.
Umesh on 24.03.2017 alleging certain incident dated
18.03.2017 vide Annexure-A and etc.
5
These Writ Petitions coming on for Preliminary
hearing, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Sri. N. Ravindranath Kamath, learned counsel appearing for petitioners and Sri. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for respondent-State who has been directed to take notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4. Perused the records.
2. Petitioners who have been arrainged as accused persons in Crime Nos.91/2017, 92/2017 and 118/2017 registered by Srirampura Police Station, Crime No.133/2017 registered by Hennur Police Station and Crime Nos.210/2017, 211/2017 and 212/2017 registered by Kengeri Police Station for various offences as indicated in the respective FIR's, are before this Court seeking for a mandamus to refer the same to Central Bureau of Investigation, New Delhi (for short "CBI") for investigation and to interrogate the complainants also to find out who 6 are the people behind them and to take action against all those persons involved in those cases; to monitor and supervise the probe and to submit the report and status of investigation periodically to this Court; to direct the probe to be conducted by a specialized agency or any such investigating agency to be constituted by this Court and to consolidate all the cases before one Magistrate Court; for a direction to consider the bail applications of all the petitioners said to be pending in C.Misc. No.4038/2017 before XXI City and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru; to direct the respondent-police to follow the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273.
3. It is the contention of Sri. N. Ravindranath Kamath, learned counsel appearing for petitioners that all the complaints which had been lodged against petitioners are on the basis of persons who are enimical to petitioner No.1 and to tarnish the image of petitioner No.1 who is a 7 active politician and also a social activist and had been elected as the Councilor for Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike along with his wife Smt. Lakshmi for the period 2001-2006. Due to his political activities, certain persons who have developed enmity and vengeance, have filed false complaints against him.
4. It is also contended that petitioners are made to appear before different Courts on account of false cases having been filed against them and police authorities are harassing the petitioners. It is also the contention of Sri. N. Ravindranath Kamath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that petitioners are suffering from acute health problems and prayer made by them for extending medical assistance has been turned down by the Magistrate Court without any reason.
5. On these grounds, it is contended that investigation conducted being contrary to the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court and petitioners being 8 innocent and having not committed the alleged offences, are detained by denying bail and that too without considering their application for grant of bail. It is also contended the torture that has been meted out by jurisdictional police to petitioners are to be an investigated by an independent authorities like CBI, particularly, in the background that, at the behest of those persons who are enimical to the petitioners and attempting to finish the petitioners not only politically but also physically. On these grounds, as more fully urged in the writ petitions, he seeks for the prayer sought for in the writ petition being granted and in support of his contentions, he has relied upon the following judgments:
1. State of West Bengal and others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others reported in (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 571 9
2. Dr. Rini Johar and another vs. State of M.P. and others reported in AIR 2016 Supreme Court 2679
3. Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar and another reported in (2014) 8 Supreme Court Cases 273
6. Per contra, Sri. Rachaiah, learned HCGP appearing for the State has contended that power of the police to investigate cannot be interfered under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, even if it is established, there are malafides in the investigation. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon the judgment reported in the matter of Ram Lal Yadav and others vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 1989 Criminal Law Journal 1013 (Full bench).
7. He has also submitted that in the instant case, jurisdictional police are investigating into truth or otherwise of the allegations made in the compliant lodged against petitioners and on account of non-cooperation of petitioners during the course of investigation and same is 10 being delayed and until and unless it is established by the petitioners that there is a prima-facie case calling for a CBI inquiry or any other similar authorities on the basis of allegations made by the petitioner against the police authorities, this Court in exercising the power vested under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India should not order for referring the matter to CBI or order for constituting the Special Investigating Team (SIT) for enquiring into the allegations made by complainant contending such exercise if undertaken would demoralise the State police authorities. He has also relied upon the case of Sakiri Vasu vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2008) 2 Supreme Court Cases 409 in support of his prayer for rejection of the petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered view that none of the contentions raised by Sri. N. Ravindranath Kamath, learned counsel 11 appearing for petitioners, deserves to be accepted for the reasons indicated herein below.
A perusal of FIR registered against the petitioners would disclose, that under the pretext of exchanging demonetized currency, petitioners are said to have received various denomination of amounts from various persons and after promising to substitute with new currency and said promise having not being fulfilled by the petitioners, respective complainants approached the petitioners and having requested to repay the amount, petitioners are said to have threatened the complainants and as such, they have lodged complaints and as such criminal cases have been registered against the petitioners. The correctness or otherwise of the complaint so lodged would not be in the domain of consideration of this Court and to examine and it is for the investigating authorities to investigate the same and as such, it cannot be gain said by the petitioners that too at the stage of 12 investigation that there is no merit in the said complaint or it is devoid with merits. It is for the investigating authorities to examine the same and submit their reports of the investigation to the jurisdictional Magistrate for taking appropriate steps as per Code of Criminal Procedure.
9. Petitioners had approached this Court W.P.No.18043-18045/2017 seeking directions to the respondents therein to conduct the interrogation of petitioners during their surrender in front of Video Camera from the time of their surrender until they are released and to conduct interrogation in the presence of their advocate. This Court after considering the prayer made by the petitioners and plea put forth by the said respondents which is marked at Annexure-C to this writ petition, had disposed of the said writ petition by observing that the prayer of the petitioners is not required to be adverted to in detail, since the learned Additional 13 Advocate General had submitted that apprehension put forth by the petitioners are without basis and also on the ground that a submission was made that Investigating Officers would be required to follow the law and guidelines as laid down by Honb'le Apex Court in the case of D.K. Basu vs. State of West Bengal reported in (1997) 1 SCC 418 and the fact that Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the procedures which will be binding on all the concerned as provided under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Hence, this Court declined to issue the writ sought for.
10. The apprehension of the petitioners in these writ petitions is investigation is not being conducted in a proper manner and complainants who are purported to have paid money to the petitioners for exchanging the demonetized currency not being proceeded with to ascertain its origin. That would not be a ground on which this Court in exercise of its extraordinary power vested 14 in Article 226 of Constitution of India or by exercising the supervisory jurisdiction vested under Article 227 of the constitution, can order for conducting an enquiry by CBI as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K. Saravanan Karuppasamy and another vs. State of Tamilnadu and others reported in (2014) 10 SCC 406 whereunder it has been held that extraordinary power in handing over investigation to CBI must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations and such orders are not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has leveled some allegations against the local police. As could be gathered from the averments made by the present petitioners and noticed at the cost of repetition is there has been no impartial investigation by the local police or in other words, the investigation is not being conducted in a fair manner and said investigation unknown to law, that by itself would not be a ground to order for enquiry being conducted by CBI. It is no doubt true, the extraordinary power vested in 15 Article 226 of Constitution of India can be exercised in a given case to ensure the rule of law would prevail or to prevent abuse of law. However, it all depends on facts and circumstances of each case as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal and others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights, West Bengal and others reported in (2010) 3 SCC 571 and there cannot be any straight jacket formula in this regard. The judicial restraint itself imposes the extraordinary power vested in the Court, which is sufficient for exercising refrain and great caution.
11. It is in this background, Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ petition referred to supra has observed that for referring the matter to CBI to conduct investigation, there cannot be inflexible guidelines laid down and such an order is not to be passed as matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the 16 local police. The caution sounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court reads as under:
"70. Before parting with the case, we deem it necessary to emphasise that despite wide powers conferred by Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution, while passing any order, the Courts must bear in mind certain self-imposed limitations on the exercise of these constitutional powers. The very plenitude of the power under the said articles requires great caution in its exercise. Insofar as the question of issuing a direction to CBI to conduct investigation in a case is concerned, although no inflexible guidelines can be laid down to decide whether or not such power should be exercised but time and again it has been reiterated that such an order is not to be passed as a matter of routine or merely because a party has levelled some allegations against the local police. This extraordinary power must be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instill confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications or where such an order may be necessary for doing complete justice and enforcing the fundamental rights. Otherwise CBI would be flooded with a large number of cases and with limited resources, may find it difficult to properly investigate even serious cases and in the process lose its credibility and purpose with unsatisfactory investigations."17
12. In the light of above stated position of law and the facts as discussed herein above, it would clearly emerge that only apprehension of the petitioners is there is no proper investigation by local police and same is without any basis and no material facts is pleaded in that regard. On the basis of such sweeping statements or allegation, this Court would not exercise its jurisdiction or otherwise would refrain from exercising jurisdiction so vested in it, to direct the CBI to conduct an enquiry.
13. However, it is needless to state, if an application for grant of bail has been filed before the jurisdictional Courts by the petitioners they would be duty bound to consider the applications or petitions as the case may be, and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law and necessarily by adopting the procedure known to law. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view these petitions deserve to be dismissed 18 and accordingly, they are dismissed subject to above observations.
Ordered accordingly.
SD/-
JUDGE Mds/-