Karnataka High Court
Sri Lokesh A C vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2023
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:34430
WP No. 15327 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 15327 OF 2023 (GM-RES)
Between:
Sri. Lokesh A.C.,
S/o. Channegowda
Aged about 50 years
R/at 1006, 'B' Block,
Maurishka Park Apartment,
Kodiyalbail, Mangaluru-575003.
Presently working as Police Inspector
Mangaluru Women Police Station,
Pandeshwara, Mangaluru
DK District-575001.
...Petitioner
(By Sri. Srikanth Patil K., Advocate)
And:
1. The State of Karnataka,
Digitally signed by B By Mangaluru Women Police Station,
K
MAHENDRAKUMAR Mangaluru, DK District-575001
Location: HIGH
COURT OF Now Represented by Learned SPP,
KARNATAKA
High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru-560001.
2. The Principal Secretary,
Department of Home,
Government of Karnataka,
Vidhana Soudha,
Bengaluru-560001.
3. The Commissioner of Police
Mangaluru,
Mangaluru District-575001.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:34430
WP No. 15327 of 2023
4. Chandrappa @ Chandrappa
Aged about 55 years
S/o. Late Hanumanthappa
R/at. House No.4, 203B
Vidyanagara, Makki
Shirthadi, Mudubidre Taluk-574236.
5. Sri. Prasad,
S/o. Krishnappa,
Aged about 27 years,
R/at. Ambeddu House,
Shirthady Village and Post,
Moodbidre Taluk-574236.
...Respondents
(By Smt. Waheeda M.M., HCGP for R1 to R3;
v/o/d 18.08.2023, service of notice to R4 to R5 is d/w)
This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India read with section 482 of the Cr.P.C.,
praying to-quash the adverse remarks/observations contained
against the petitioner and the consequential directions to the
petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- to Respondent
No.4 and 5 and direct to Respondent No.2 and 3 to take action
against petitioner in the judgment dated 08/06/2023 made in
special case No. 191/2022 passed by the Additional District and
Sessions Judge/ FTSC-II (POCSO), D.K., Mangaluru vide
Annexure-A.
This Writ Petition, coming on for preliminary hearing, this
day, the court made the following:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:34430
WP No. 15327 of 2023
ORDER
The petitioner who was the investigating officer in Crime No.73/2022, registered by Managaluru Women Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 376(2)(f) and 506 of IPC and Sections 5(l)(n) and 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, is before this court challenging the disparaging remarks made against him in Special Case No.191/2022 by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-II (POCSO), Dakshina Kannada, Mangaluru.
2. The facts giving rise to this case are as follows:
The survivor set the law into motion vide complaint dated 15.07.2022 alleging that she being a minor became pregnant as a result of the forcible sexual intercourse committed by one Prasad from Shirthadi village on 14.02.2021.
Thereafter, in the statement recorded under -4- NC: 2023:KHC:34430 WP No. 15327 of 2023 Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the survivor has stated that she became pregnant as a result of forcible sexual intercourse committed by one Sandesh i.e., her employer. Since there was contradiction in the statement made by the survivor, further statement of the survivor was recorded and in the said statement, she is alleged to have stated that she became pregnant as a result of repeated penetrative sexual assault committed by her step father i.e., respondent No.4. Based on the evidence collected during the course of investigation, the petitioner laid the charge sheet before the trial court against respondent No.4.
3. The trial court after appreciating the evidence on record acquitted respondent No.4 holding that the survivor has omitted what has been made in her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., and deviated from the statement made before Dr. Lekha-PW4 and also on the ground that -5- NC: 2023:KHC:34430 WP No. 15327 of 2023 the DNA report of the aborted child did not match with respondent No.4. Learned Sessions Judge after having acquitted respondent No.4, passed the following disparaging remarks against the investigating officer.
The investigating officer has not assigned any reasons for dropping Sandesh from the charge sheet;
He manipulated the further statement of the survivor dated 12.10.2022; The IO and his team truly committed impropriety to such a honour for their selfishness and indicates that, they are the stigma to the society;
They shall be held responsible for the false implication of the innocent persons in the process of protecting the real and the possible culprits;
The innocent persons were falsely implicated and were behind the bars for more than 8 months and 2 months respectively;
-6-
NC: 2023:KHC:34430 WP No. 15327 of 2023
4. Further the learned Sessions Judge directed the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- (Four Lakhs only) out of his own pocket to the accused and Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh only) to one Prasad and also directed the competent authority to conduct departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Taking exception of the disparaging remarks made against him, the petitioner has filed this petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that before passing the disparaging remarks, the petitioner was not provided with an opportunity to explain or defend himself. He further submits that the survivor in her evidence tendered before the trial court has categorically stated that her pregnancy was a result of penetrative sexual assault committed by her step father i.e., respondent No.4. Therefore the final report was submitted solely on the basis of the -7- NC: 2023:KHC:34430 WP No. 15327 of 2023 statement of the survivor and in the absence of any material that the statement of the survivor was manipulated by the petitioner, the impugned remarks made against the petitioner requires to be expunged.
6. In support of his submission, he places reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE (NCT OF DELHI) V. PANKAJ CHAUDHARY AND OTHERS 1,
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader for the State would submit that the charge sheet materials clearly discloses that the petitioner manipulated the statement of the survivor so as to help the real culprits go Scot free and the investigation conducted by the petitioner suffers from lapses and arbitrariness. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge is right in passing disparaging remarks against the petitioner and the 1 (2019) 11 SCC 575 -8- NC: 2023:KHC:34430 WP No. 15327 of 2023 same does not call for any interference by this court.
8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
9. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) supra at para 42 to 45 has held as follows:
42. While passing disparaging remark s against the police officials and directin g prosecution against them, in our considered view, the High Court has failed to bear in mind the well settled principles of law that should govern the courts before making disparaging remarks. Any disparagin g remarks and direction to initiate departmental action/prosecution against the persons whose conduct comes into consideration before the court would have serious impact on their official career.
43. In S.K. Viswamb aran v. E. Koyakunju and Others (1987) 2 SCC 109, this Court held as under:--9-
NC: 2023:KHC:34430 WP No. 15327 of 2023 "9. Stung by the remarks made against him without even a hearing.............".
13. We have also to point out a grievous procedural error committed by the High Court. Even assuming for argument's sake that for expunging the remarks against Respondents 2 and 3 the conduct of the appellant required scrutiny and merited adverse comment, the principles of natural justice required the High Court to have issued notice to the appellant and heard him before passing adverse remarks against him if it was considered necessary. By its failure the High Court has failed to render elementary justice to the appellant.
14. ...........In State of U.P . v. Mohd. Naim AIR 1964 SC 703, it was held as follows:
10............"If there is one principle of cardinal importance in the administration of justice, it is this: the proper freedom and independence of Judges and Magistrates must be maintained and they must be allowed to perform their functions freely and fearlessly and without undue interference by anybody, even by this Court. At the same time, it is equally necessary that in expressing their opinions
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:34430 WP No. 15327 of 2023 Judges and Magistrates must be guided by considerations of justice, fair play and restraint. It is not infreq uent that sweeping generalisations defeat the very purpose for which they are made. It has been judicially recognised that in the matter of making disparaging remarks against p ersons or authorities whose conduct comes into consideration before courts of law in case s to be decided by them, it is relevant to consider (a) whether the party whose conduct is in question is before the court or has an opportunity of explaining or defending himself; (b) whether there is evidence on record bearing on that conduct justifying the remarks; and (c) whether it is necessary for the decision of the case, as an integral part thereof, to animadvert on that conduct. It has also been recognised that judicial pronouncements must be judicial i n nature, and should not normally depart fro m sobriety, moderation and reserve." This ratio has been followed in R.K. Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan and Another (1975) 2 SCC 466 and Niranjan Patnaik v . Sashibhusan Kar and Another (1986) 2 SCC 569 (to which one of us was a party). Judged in the light of the above tests, it
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC:34430 WP No. 15327 of 2023 may be seen that none of the tests is satisfied in this case. It is indeed regrettable that the High Court should have lightly passed adverse remarks of a very serious nature affecting the character and professional competence and integrity of the appellant in purported desire to render justice to Respondents 2 and 3 in the petition filed by them for expunction of adverse remarks made against them."
[emphasis supplied]
44. In Manish Dixit and Others v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 1 SCC 596, this Court held as under:-
"42. .........Such disparaging remarks and the direction to initiate departmental action against him could have a very serious impact on his official career.
43. Even those apart, this Court has repeatedly cautioned that before any castigating remarks are made by the court against any person, particularly when such remarks could ensure serious consequences on the future career of the person concerned, he should have been given an opportunity of being heard in the matter in
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC:34430 WP No. 15327 of 2023 respect of the proposed remarks or strictures. Such an opportunity is the basi c requirement, for, otherwise the offending remarks would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. In this case such an opportunity was not given to PW 30 (Devendra Kumar Sharma). (State of U.P. v . Mohd. Naim AI R 1964 SC 703, Ch. Jage Ram, Inspector of Police and Another v. Hans Raj Midha (1972) 1 SCC 181, R.K. Lakshmanan v. A.K. Srinivasan and Another (1975) 2 SCC 466, Niranjan Patnaik v.
Sashibhusan Kar and Another (1986) 2 SCC 569 and State of Karnataka v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka (2000) 7 SCC 333).
(emphasis supplied)
45. Since the High Court has passed strictures against the police officials who were involved in the investigation in FI R No.559 of 1997 without affording an opportunity of hearing to them, the disparaging remarks are liable to be set aside.
10. Admittedly, the survivor has contradicted in her further statement and also the statement
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC:34430 WP No. 15327 of 2023 recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. Based on the final statement of the survivor, the petitioner herein laid the charge sheet against respondent No.4.
11. Learned Sessions Judge has come to conclusion that the statement of the survivor was manipulated. However, no material much less the statement of survivor discloses how and in what manner that her statement has been manipulated by the petitioner. Therefore in the absence of any cogent material that the petitioner has manipulated the statement of the survivor, the stricture made against the petitioner is not sustainable in law.
12. Even otherwise, before making the disparaging remarks against the petitioner, learned Sessions Judge ought to have provided an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation or to defend the charge. However,
- 14 -
NC: 2023:KHC:34430 WP No. 15327 of 2023 learned Sessions Judge without providing an opportunity to the petitioner to defend himself has made the disparaging remarks and the same is in violation of the principles of justice. Therefore the disparaging remarks made in violation of the natural justice and also in the absence of any incriminative material, are required to be expunged. Accordingly I pass the following:
ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed.
ii. The disparaging remarks made by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-II (POCSO), D.K. Mangaluru in Special Case No.191/2022 made against the petitioner and the order of paying compensation amount of Rs.4,00,000/- to respondent No.4 and Rs.1,00,000/- to Prasad in the said case and direction to conduct
- 15 -
NC: 2023:KHC:34430 WP No. 15327 of 2023 departmental enquiry against the petitioner, is hereby quashed.
Pending application/s, if any, does not survive for consideration, in view of disposal of main matter.
Sd/-
JUDGE KMV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 58