Karnataka High Court
K Prakash vs State Of Karnataka on 29 March, 2023
Author: Ravi V Hosmani
Bench: Ravi V Hosmani
-1-
WP No. 42763 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
WRIT PETITION NO. 42763 OF 2018 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
1. K. PRAKASH,
S/O K. KESHAVA,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
POLICE INSPECTOR,
CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH,
BENGALURU-560018.
2. SUNIL KUMAR,
S/O K.K.BHASKARAN,
HEAD CONSTABLE,
TRAFFIC POLICE STATION, SOUTH,
MANGALORE-575001.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJAT ARIGA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. SRINIVAS RAO S.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
Digitally signed by
GEETHAKUMARI REP. BY ADDL.CHIEF SECRETARY,
PARLATTAYA S (INTERNAL ADMINISTRATION),
Location: High Court VIDHANA SOUDHA,
of Karnataka DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. DIRECTOR GENERAL & INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE
POLICE HEAD QUARTERS,
NRUPATUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU.
3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
MANGALORE CITY,
MANGALORE-575 001.
-2-
WP No. 42763 of 2018
4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT,
MANGALORE-575 001.
5. KARNATAKA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION,
III FLOOR, V PHASE,
MULTI STORIED BUILDING,
DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
6. P.B. D'SA
DISTRICT PRESIDENT,
PEOPLE'S UNION FOR CIVIL LIBERTIES,
FATHER MULLER ROAD,
VALENCIA, MANGALORE-575 002.
7. B.V. SEETHARAM,
CHAIRMAN & CHIEF EDITOR,
CHITRA PUBLICATIONS (P) LTD.,
400-C, BAILAMPADY INDUSTRIAL AREA,
MANGALORE-575 011.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R5;
NOTICE TO R6 & R7 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 4.9.2018 AT ANNEXURE-A PASSED ON THE FILE OF
THE FIFTH RESPONDENT IN H.R.NO.6451/2009 C/W 6567/2009 AND
6599/2009, GRANT AN AD-INTERIM ORDER TO STAY OF OPERATION
OF THE ORDER DATED 4.9.2018 PASSED ON THE FILE OF THE R-5 IN
H.R.C.NO.6451/2009 C/W 6567/2009 AND 6899/2009 VIDE
ANNEXURE-A AND ALL OTHER FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT
TO THERETO.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
B-GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
WP No. 42763 of 2018
ORDER
Challenging order dated 04.09.2018 passed by respondent no.5 in H.R.C.no.6451/2009 c/w 6567/2009 and 6899/2009 (Annexure-A) passed by respondent no.5, this writ petition is filed.
2. Sri. Rajath Ariga, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that on 08.09.2010, petitioner along with other staff of their department received credible information about few notorious dacoits escaped from Bijapur Central Prison and they are plotting to commit docoity and were proceeding in Swift car bearing registration no.KA-02-MC/3107 in vicinity of Swarnagauri Layout near Paduvina Angadi. Therefore, they proceeded towards that place and waiting for arrival of said vehicle. At that time, said car came, despite giving signal to stop vehicle, it did not stop and in an attempt to escape, hit petitioners' vehicle. At that point, one person sitting in front seat, beside driver, took out revolver and shot at petitioner no.2 in close proximity. As he was about to open fire against him, as a result said person sustained injury on his upper part of left side of chest. Immediately he was shifted to nearby hospital, but doctor declared as brought dead. Deceased was -4- WP No. 42763 of 2018 identified as Sardar Babu, a notorious criminal facing 42 criminal cases.
3. On basis of report of respondent no.4, respondent nos.6 and 7 submitted their representations to State Human Rights Commission on 24.10.2009 and 13.10.2009 respectively. Upon inquiry, impugned recommendation is made. Learned counsel submitted that since petitioner reiterates that in self-defence and as deceased took out revolver and about to fire at close proximity against him, there was no violation of Human Rights Act. Without proper consideration impugned recommendation was made. Fact that petitioner had also shifted injured to hospital, would indicate bonafide on their part. There was no proper consideration of ballistic forensic laboratory report and P.M. report. On above ground learned counsel sought for quashing report.
4. On other hand, Sri. V Shiva Reddy,learned HCGP for respondents no.1 to 4 and Sri. Nitin Prasad, learned counsel for respondent no.5 sought to oppose petition. Respondent no.5 has also filed statement of objections appending copy of correspondences sent by respondent no.2 to respondent no.1 dated 14.11.2018 enclosing copy of order of National Human Rights Commission('NHRC' for short). On perusal of report -5- WP No. 42763 of 2018 produced along with Annexure-R1, it is seen that on same incident, NHRC had also entertained complaint on 10.10.2019 and on consideration of report and all other relevant materials, NHRC has arrived at conclusion that there was no violation of Human Rights Act, insofar as petitioner opening fire against deceased and therefore, complaint was closed.
5. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order and record.
6. On perusal of impugned report at Annexure-A, it is seen that case was registered on basis of complaint submitted by respondent no.7 on 20.10.2009 and report was submitted on 04.09.2018. But, NHRC held inquiry of complaint on 10.10.2009 submitted by Deputy Superintendent of Police, D.K. District. which was prior to that of State Human Rights Commission.
7. Section 21(5) of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 provides that Commission shall not inquire into any matter which is already being inquired into by any State Commission duly constituted by it. Likewise Section 36 indicates that any matter which was subject matter of enquiry before State Commission cannot be subject matter of inquiry by National Commission.
-6-WP No. 42763 of 2018
8. Admittedly, report by National Commission and State Commission in instant case though with regard to same incident are contradictory, in view of fact that NHRC had entertained complaint prior to that by State Human Rights Commission( for short 'SHRC') and had concluded that there was no violation of Human Rights Act. SHRC could not have inquired into matter which was already pending inquiry before NHRC. Apparently, SHR was not aware of proceedings before NHRC even communication at Annexure-R1, copy of which was marked to SHRC after submission of impugned report. SHRC was therefore not aware of proceedings and also conclusion arrived at by NHRC in view of provisions of Section 21 r/w Section 36 of Human Rights Act, indicating exclusions of jurisdiction of SHRC or NHRC, as case may be in respect of which latter had already entertained complaint, recommendation by SHRC which was on a later complaint would be barred. Consequently, jurisdiction to entertain complaint itself would be taken away. Hence writ petition deserves to be allowed on said ground.
Accordingly writ petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 04.09.2018 passed by respondent no.5 in -7- WP No. 42763 of 2018 H.R.C.no.6451/2009 c/w 6567/2009 and 6899/2009 (Annexure-A) is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Psg*