Karnataka High Court
Sri. Manjunatha C M vs State Of Karnataka on 28 June, 2017
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
WRIT PETITION No.54211/2016 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
Sri Manjunatha C.M,
S/o Veerbhadraiah,
Aged about 35 years,
R/at No.82,
Hanisi Village and Post,
Hagari Bommanahalli Taluk,
Bellari District - 583 135. ...Petitioner
(By Sri Clifton D Rozario, Advocate)
AND:
1. State of Karnataka,
Rep. by the Chief Secretary,
Home Department, Vidhana Soudha,
Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Veedhi,
Bangalore - 560 001.
2. Superintendent of Police, Davangere,
'C' Block, Devaraj Urs Layout,
Davangere - 577 006.
3. Vidyanagar Police Station,
Kondajji Road, Vidya Nagar,
2
Davangere - 577 006.
Rep. by the Circle Inspector. ... Respondents
(By Smt. Prathima Honnapura, AGA)
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India praying to direct that the investigation of the
untimely demise of the petitioners son C.M. Chiranthan, presently
registered as FIR No.129/2016 dated 5.7.2016 with the Kudligi
Police Station, Bellary and FIR No.72/2016 dated 1.8.2016 of the
Vidyanagara Police Station be conducted by the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) or an independent agency under the supervision
and monitoring of this Hon'ble Court.
This writ petition coming on for preliminary hearing in 'B'
group this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
This petition is filed seeking an order for enquiry by Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into the untimely demise of the petitioner's son C.M. Chiranthan.
2. Sri Clifton D Rozario, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner admitted his child to S.S.I.M.S. Hospital, Davanagere, as the child was suffering from fever. After battling for life for two days, the child breathed his last. When the child was about to be buried, the petitioner saw the cut marks on 3 the abdomen of Chiranthan. On suspecting the foul play in the death of Chiranthan, the police complaint was filed. It was registered as Crime No.129/2016. The police have filed 'B' report.
3. Sri Rozario submits that the medial reports were not made available for the petitioner immediately after the death of the child. He submits that the hospital's ultrasound scan report contains many deletions and additions. He submits that yet another circumstance for seeking investigation by CBI is that the petitioner has been receiving the phone calls from many influential politicians asking the petitioner to withdraw the complaint.
4. On being asked, the petitioner's learned advocate submits that as per the post mortem report, no organ of the child's body is missing. He submits that the petitioner has also disputed the veracity of the post mortem report.
5. Smt. Prathima Honnapura, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that as per the police investigation, the doctors had to prick at many 4 places on the child's abdomen, because they were not getting the veins. She submits that the police have investigated the case from all angles and that their investigation is not indicative of any foul play in the death of the child.
6. The submissions of the learned counsel have received my thoughtful consideration. The enquiry by the CBI cannot be ordered in the absence of a justifiable basis for the same.
7. The petitioner has already challenged the 'B' report by filing the protest application. If the child has died on account of medical negligence and if the petitioner is so advised, he may initiate appropriate proceedings for seeking damages. Viewed from any angle, I do not find any need to order investigation by the CBI. The petitioner's request is therefore turned down but by reserving the liberty to the petitioner to take his protest application (which he has filed for challenging the 'B' report) to its logical culmination. The criminal court shall decide the said protest application of the petitioner without being influenced by the reasons given 5 hereinabove for dismissing this petition. Similarly, if the petitioner chooses to file any suit for damages or initiates any other proceedings, the same would be considered by the concerned forum without being influenced by the order dismissing this writ petition.
8. Subject to the observations made and liberties reserved hereinabove, this petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD