Karnataka High Court
Shri. C Venkatesh vs State Of Karnataka on 30 March, 2022
Author: K.Natarajan
Bench: K.Natarajan
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
WRIT PETITION NO.12787 OF 2021
BETWEEN
SHRI C. VENKATESH
S/O. CHIKKANNA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
OCCUPATION: EMPLOYED
T.C. HALLI, SARJAPURA HOBLI
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU RURAL. .. PETITIONER
(BY SRI C.H.JADHAV, SENIOR ADVOCATE
FOR SRI. CHETAN JADHAV, ADVOCATE
(VIDEO CONFERENCE))
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
THE HOME DEPARTMENT
BENGALURU - 560 001
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU CITY - 560 051
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
NO.5, MILLERS ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 052
2
4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
ANEKAL SUB DIVISION
BENGALURU
KARNATAKA - 562 106
5. SRI VISHWANATH
CIRCLE INSPECTOR
ATTIBELE CIRCLE
ATTIBELE, ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU DISTRICT - 562 107
6. SRI HARISH
SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
SARJAPURA POLICE STATION
SARJAPURA
ANEKAL TALUK
BENGALURU - 562 125
7. SRI RUDRAPPA
S/O MUNISWAMY
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
R/AT CHAMBENAHALLI VILLAGE
SARJAPURA HOBLI
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4
SRI. V.ANAND, ADVOCATE FOR R7
SRI.SOMASHEKARA K.M. FOR R5
SRI.ABHINAY Y.T. FOR R6)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT R2 TO ENTRUST THE INVESTIGATION TO COD IN
PCR NO.214/2021 AND PCR 219/2021 PENDING ON THE FILE
OF PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC ANEKAL AND DIRECT R2 TO
ENTRUST THE INVESTIGATION TO COD IN CR.NO.195/2020,
CR.NO.49/2021, CR.NO.51/2021, CR.NO.103/2021,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF SARJAPURA POLICE STATION AND
DIRECT R3 TO INITIATE DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST
3
R5/ SRI.VISHWANTH, CIRCLE INSPECTOR, ATTIBELE
CIRCLE, AND AGAINST R6/SRI HARISH, SUB-INSPECTOR OF
POLICE, SARJAPURA POLICE STATION VIDE COURT ORDER
DATED 5.7.2021 PASSED IN W.P.NO.7338/2020 OFFICE
OBJECTIONS ARE WAIVED.
THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 22.03.2022 THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Writ Petition is filed by the petitioner seeking relief of, [a.] Issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent No.2, the Director General of Police to entrust the investigation to COD in PCR No.214/2021 and PCR No.219/2021 pending on the file of Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Anekal.
[b.] Issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondent No.2 to entrust the investigation to COD in Crime No.195/2020, 49/2021, 51/2021 and 103/2021 registered by Sarjapura police station.
4 [c.] Issue Writ of Mandamus or any other, appropriate direction, directing the respondent No.3 Superintendent of Police, Bangalore Rural District, Bengaluru, to initiate disciplinary action against respondent No.5, CPI and respondent No.6 PSI of Sarja Pura Police Station and any other directions or order deems fit under the circumstances of the case.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, the petitioner is working under Aratukulam Developers LLP from 19.2.2019 and he was employed for supervising the construction activity and securing documents, including the permit and a clearance etc., for the purpose of development of project work undertaken by his employer. It is the further case of the petitioner that his employer undertaken to develop a land in Sy.No.129 situated at Chambanahalli Village near Sarjapura, the said property was in dispute between one Muniswamy who is the grand father of the respondent No.7- 5 Rudrappa and the vendor of the employer of this petitioner one P.C.Murugesh, there was compromise in Original Suit No. 1887/2006 before the Senior Civil Judge, Anekal and the defendant, in the said case was considered to be the owner of the land. After becoming the owner of the said property, Murugesh sold the property to his employer under a sale deed dated 25.10.2014. However, the FIR came to be registered against the said Murugesh in Crime No.195/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 428, 471, 406, 465, 419 read with 34 of IPC and the respondent No.6 recorded the voluntary statement of Murugesh alleging that he has created a false and fabricated document in respect of the said property and the respondent police searched the house of the petitioner on 2.6.2021.
3. The petitioner further contended that on 20.03.2021 the respondent No.7 filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.106/2021 which is 6 pending and the said suit is sub-judiced and after some time when the petitioner was working in the field, the respondent No.7 came along with the henchman and threatened to kill and also assaulted. Therefore a complaint came to be filed against respondent No.7 in Crime No.49/2021 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 504, 506, 447, 323, 324, read with 34 of IPC. On the next day i.e., on 24.3.2021 the respondent No.7 in collusion with the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 registered a false case against the petitioner in Crime No.51/2021 for the offences punishable under Section 143, 418, 419, 420, 447, 468, 323, 506, 504, and 149 of IPC and conducted the investigation. He further alleges that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 in collusion with the respondent No.7 registered one more false case against the petitioner in Crime No.103/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 506, 341, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 307 and 354 of IPC. He further alleges that the respondent No.7 has not at all given any such 7 complaint but the respondent Nos.5 and 6 forged the signature of respondent No.7 for the purpose of registering the false case against the petitioner in Crime No.103/2021 and the petitioner was arrested and he was detained in police custody. Himself and another accused were brutally assaulted by respondent Nos.5 and 6 and while producing this petitioner before the Magistrate the respondent Nos.5 and 6 had threatened not to make any complaint of ill treatment in police custody and if he discloses the harassment to the Magistrate the respondent Nos.5 and 6, threatened that they will register a false ganja case against him and also they will register a false prostitution case against his wife and family members. Therefore, he has not made any complaint to the Magistrate when he was produced before Magistrate but after he was remanded to judicial custody, he has sent a complaint from the jail to the Sessions Judge which was treated as private complaint by the Magistrate and directed to register FIR and 8 investigated by Deputy Superintendent but the Assistant Superintendent of Police investigated the matter and filed B report. Likewise another accused also filed another private complaint which was also ended in filing 'B Report'. Therefore, these two cases based upon the PCR Nos.214 and 219 of 2021 shall be handed over the COD police for investigation.
4. The petitioner further alleges that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 registered false case in Crime No.103/2021 by forging the signature of respondent No.7 which was revealed in the expert opinion report obtained by the petitioner from Mudra associates dated 11.6.2021. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 being CPI and PSI were in the habit of registering a false case against the petitioner. Once the previous complaint is pending in respect of Crime No.195/2020 the henchman of the respondent No.7 came and assaulted, therefore he has filed a complaint against him in Crime No.49/2021 but 9 the police not investigated the matter, but they called the respondent No.7 obtained a complaint and registered a counter case against this petitioner in Crime No.51/2021 by next day on 24.03.2021 and they also raided the house of this petitioner on 2.6.2021 but on the day the police also created a false complaint by forging the signature of respondent No.7 and registered Crime No.103/2021 on 01.06.2021 itself. They have not filed the charge sheet in Crime No.49 and 51 of 2021 which is case and counter cases but purposefully registered one more case in Crime No.103/2021 for harassing the petitioner. The respondent Nos.5 and 6 is not conducting any fair investigation. The petitioner also filed complaint against respondent Nos.5 and 6 before the Magistrate for manhandling them, therefore every possibility of filing B reports on these complaints is not ruled out. He is not expecting a fair investigation in the hand of respondent Nos.5 and 6, therefore the investigation shall be handed over to the COD police. 10
5. The petitioner further contends that in view of registering a false case by forging signature of respondent No.7, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 have filed a false complaint against the petitioner and the matter shall have to be referred to the COD for investigation to verify the handwriting of the respondent No.7 in the complaint and it is also necessary to conduct a departmental enquiry against respondent Nos.5 and 6 through respondent No.3 Superintendent of police, Bengaluru Rural District, hence prayed for allowing the petition.
6. The respondent Nos.1 to 4 represented by learned HCGP filed written objections mentioning the registration of the case against the petitioner and complaint of the petitioner in respect of crime Nos.195/2020, 49/2021, 51/2021, and 103/2021. The police already filed B final report on the private complaint filed by the petitioner and another, and the 11 magistrate took the cognizance against respondent Nos.5 and 6 and others. The police already filed the charge sheet in crime No.103/2021. The petitioner and another did not make any complaint against respondent Nos.5 and 6 in respect of any ill-treatment by the police. The medical examination report revealed that the injuries are 10 days old and therefore, the police filed B Final report. The police officer who investigated the matter has been already transferred to some other post and the said Deputy Superintendent of Police is also transferred. Therefore an additional Superintendent of police investigated the matter and filed 'B Final Report' and therefore prayed for disposal of the writ petition.
7. Respondent Nos.5 and 6 appeared through their advocates and filed written objections by denying the allegations made by the petitioner against them and both of them have admitted the case and counter cases registered between the parties but denied that false case 12 registered by them in the name of respondent No.7. It is contended that the petitioner and other rowdy sheeter attempted to commit murder of respondent No.7 on 1.6.2021, therefore complaint has been registered in Crime No.103/2021. A search warrant also obtained to search house of one Murugesh and this petitioner and seized some documents and while producing the petitioner before the Magistrate, there is no complaint made by him against them about the ill treatment. The petitioner has filed private complaint against the respondent to pressurize the police to withdraw the case filed against them and hence prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. Both the petitioner and Murugesh were produced along with the medical certificates.
8. The respondent No.7 also appeared and filed a separate statement of objections contending that the petitioner has no locus standi to file writ petition and contended that the employer already filed writ petition 13 before this court which is pending. The respondent No.7 also filed suit against one Murugesh. A sketch was also produced where, the developer in collusion with the petitioner and Murugesh, attempted to trespass into the property of the respondent and therefore suit was filed by him in O.S.No.106/2021 which is pending. To pressurize the respondent Nos.5 and 6, this petition came to be filed. Therefore, prayed for dismissing the petition.
9. Heard the argument of learned counsel for the parties and HCGP and perused the records.
10. It is an admitted fact that this petitioner is working under a developer called Aratukulam Developers LLP. It is also an admitted fact that the said developer said to have purchased a land from one Muruguesh in respect of Sy No.129 situated at Chemmanhalli village. It is also not in dispute that the said Murugesh became owner of the land in pursuant to 14 the compromise in a suit in O.S.No.1887/2006 which was settled in the Lok Adalath. Subsequently he has sold the said land to the employer of the petitioner.
11. It is also not in dispute that there was dispute between Murugesh and respondent No.7. It is also not in dispute that in Crime No.195/2020 registered by the police against the petitioner and his employer on the complaint of one Girish. It is also not in dispute that there was a case registered on the complaint filed by this petitioner against the three persons in Crime No.49/2021 on 23.3.2021 and subsequently very next day the respondent No.7 filed a counter complaint against the petitioner and his employer as well as the predecessor in title of the property, Murugesh which was registered in Crime No.51/2021. It is admitted fact that the respondent No.5 is Circle Inspector who was incharge of Sarjapura Police Station at the relevant time. It is also not in dispute the respondent No.6 is a 15 PSI of Sarjapura police station during that time. The respondent No.6 is police officer who was the station house officer of the Sarjapura Police Station. It is also not in dispute that in these 3 cases, the police have not completely investigated and filed any final report or charge sheet which was still pending. It is also not in dispute, the police approached the Magistrate and obtained the search warrant on 02.06.2021 for searching the house of this petitioner and the learned Magistrate issued the search warrant to search the house. It is also admitted fact that in Crime No.103/2021 registered by the Sarjapura Police Station as on 01.06.2021 wherein the name of the respondent No.7 Rudrappa is shown as first informant/defacto complainant. The copy of the complaint has been produced which was computerized one. It is also shown in the 2nd page of the complaint that it was signed by Rudrappa and his one more signature also found at column No. 12 of the FIR in Crime No.103/2021. These 16 FIRs have been received by Magistrate on 2.6.2021 at 1.30 a.m. in the early morning. The order sheet of the magistrate in respect of Crime No.103/2021 reveals that the petitioner and other accused Murugesh were produced before the Magistrate on 02.06.2021 at 06.20 p.m. The accused persons, that is the petitioner informed to the court that they have been arrested by the police on 01.06.2021 at 11.30 p.m. However, they were given to the police custody till 05.06.2021 by imposing certain conditions. Subsequently they have been produced before the court and remanded to judicial custody and at that time were not ill treated by the police. Subsequently, when the accused were produced before the court, the accused were made a report to the Magistrate, an explanation was called by the Magistrate from the respondent No.6 and the medical officer also opined that the injury was older injury, therefore the magistrate ordered to release them on bail. 17
12. It is also an admitted fact, the present petitioner sent a typed complaint to the District and Sessions Judge, from the jail regarding manhandling, threatening, by respondent Nos.5 and 6 wherein he has categorically stated that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 have threatened and that the accused shall not disclose the ill treatment to the Magistrate and if he discloses anything then they will register a false case against his wife for prostitution case and also implicate him in a false drug/ganja cases. It is submitted by the petitioner, because of the said threat, he has not informed to the Magistrate. Subsequently the said letter has been treated as private complaint and registered as PCR No.214/2021. The learned Magistrate after elaborate discussion came to the conclusion that respondent Nos.5 and 6 had manhandled the accused persons while in their custody. Therefore, directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police to investigate into the matter and submit a report. Admittedly, the Deputy 18 Superintendent of Police said have been transferred and the investigation was handed over to Additional Superintendent of police and now the Additional Superintendent of police said to have filed 'B Final Report' after the investigation. Likewise, in another matter, the same petitioner filed another PCR No.219/2021 under section 200 Cr.P.C and the same was referred to the Deputy Superintendent of Police for investigation and the Additional Superintendent of police filed 'B final report' on the said complaint. The said 'B final report' has been submitted by the Additional Superintendent of police after filing of this writ petition before this Court. The learned Counsel for the respondents submits the learned magistrate without rejecting the 'B Final Report' took the cognizance against the respondent Nos.5 to 7 and others.
13. In view of the said admitted facts and submission made by the parties, once the Magistrate 19 treated the complaint of the petitioner and another, registering the PCR Nos.214 and 219 of 2021 and the police filed the 'B Final Report' and once the Magistrate took the cognizance against the respondent Nos.5 to 7, it is deemed to be considered that the Magistrate rejected the B final report and taken the cognizance. Once the magistrate took the cognizance of the complaint filed by this petitioner and another it is not necessary to handover the investigation in PCR Nos.214 and 219 of 2021, to COD police. Therefore, the first prayer (a) becomes infructuous and no direction requires to be issued in the nature of mandamus.
14. Now coming to the prayer at (b) that handing over the investigation to COD in respect of Crime Nos. 195/2020, 49/2021, 51/2021 and 103/2021 in this regard, I have already discussed above that the investigation in Crime no.195/2020 is still pending and the alleged offences in respect of the forging of the 20 documents of the property on the complaint filed by one Girish, the Taluk surveyor where the allegation is for creating false sketch. In another complaint filed by this petitioner in Crime No.49/2021 on 23.3.2021 against one Gopala, Amaresha, Manjunatha for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 323, 324, 427, 506 of IPC, the police have not at all filed any charge sheet till date. On the other hand the respondent No.7 filed complaint in Crime No.51/2021 on 24.3.2021 against the petitioner and Murugesh in respect of the same incident where FIR already registered in Crime No.49/2021. The police not chosen to file any charge sheet in spite of lapse of so many days.
15. The document especially search warrant has been obtained by the police in respect of Crime No.51/2021 by filing application on 1.6.2021 and the complaint filed by respondent 6 which was granted by the Magistrate on 1.6.2021 itself. In the meanwhile it 21 appears that in another case in Crime No.103/2021 registered by the respondent No.6 against the accused Nos.1 and 2 it was stated that respondent no.7 filed the complaint on 1.6.2021 at 11.30 p.m., A case for the offence punishable under Section 143, 147, 341, 148, 504, 506, 307, 354, of IPC was registered alleging that there was incident of assault and attempt to commit murder of respondent No.7 at 10.15 p.m. The FIR also registered, the petitioner and another accused were arrested on 1.6.2021 at 11.30 p.m. and they were said to be manhandled by the police and after producing them before the court obtained the custody for 5 days and now presently charge sheet came to be filed against them.
16. Though the petitioner and another accused lodged private complaint against the police for manhandling, threatening to register false cases but the 22 Magistrate already taken cognizance in this case in PCR No.214/2021 and PCR No.219/2021.
17. However, the respondent No.7 who said to have lodged complaint on 1.6.2021 at 11.30 p.m. where the petitioner taken a specific contention that the signature of respondent No.7 has been forged by the police for the purpose of registering false case against them. In this regard the learned senior counsel appearing for petitioner brought to the notice and produced some documents wherein the signature of the respondent No.7 found in the complaint filed by him, registered in Crime No.51/2021 on 24.3.2021, the signature purported to be created by the police in the complaint dated 1.6.2021 registered in Crime No.103/2021 has been sent to the hand writing expert to Mudra associates where an opinion given by the hand writing expert stating that the signature found in the person who affixed the signature in respect of signature 23 found in the complaint dated 24.3.2021 is not that of the signature found in the FIR and complaint dated 01.06.2021, that means the signature of the respondent No.7 found in the FIR filed in Crime No.51/2021 is not that of signature of respondent No.7 found in the Crime No.103/2021. The respondent No.7 also appeared before this court and filed statement of objection, he has not admitted that he as filed any such complaint on 1.6.2021 which was registered as FIR in crime No.103/2021. Even the respondent No.7 not specifically denied the allegation of this petitioner that the signature in the Crime No.103/2021 is not that of the signature of respondent No.7. It prima facie reveals the signature of respondent No.7 might be forged by the police by creating a false complaint and registered against them. It is also not necessary for registering another complaint against them as the police already obtained search warrant in Crime No.51/2021 on the complaint of respondent No.7 and the petitioner also alleged that the 24 police threatened to register a false case against them and they have manhandled them. But the said police not filed any charge sheet in Crime Nos.49 and 51 of 2021 which is a case and counter cases and also the previous complaint in Crime No.195/2020, but the police hurriedly filed charge sheet in Crime No.103/2021 when the petition is pending before this Court. Therefore, there is substance in the argument addressed by learned senior counsel C.S. Jadhav that police manipulated the complaint forged the signature of respondent No.7 manhandled the petitioners and another, threatened to register false cases. Therefore, it is not fair to allow the respondent Nos.5 and 6 or the Sarjapura Police Station to investigate the matter, hence the right and liberty of the petitioner is required to be protected which is guaranteed under the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Once the Court prima facie finds the signature of respondent No.7 is forged one and obtaining the search warrant by the police in Crime Nos.51/5021 and 25 195/2020 were all required to be investigated by the higher investigation agency and as rightly stated by the counsel for the petitioner that a fair investigation cannot be expected from the same Sarjapura Police station, it is necessary to direct the respondent No.2, the Director General of Police to handover the investigation to COD police in respect of the Crime No.195/2020, 49/2021, 51/2021 and further investigation in respect of 103/2021 to verify the veracity of the complaint registered on the alleged complainant/Rudrappa respondent No.7 to meet the ends of justice.
18. Though the learned HCGP and the respondent counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 contended no enquiry shall be held against the police officer on the complaint of the petitioner who is a rowdy sheeter and an accused etc., but the fact remains the petitioner said to be involved in a case in Crime No.1107/1995 for the offence under Section 489 A and B of IPC, the learned 26 senior counsel submits in the said case, he has been acquitted by the High Court. However the learned HCGP also produced document wherein the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru Rural District, declared that the petitioner is a rowdy sheeter. As per the memo dated 23.8.2021, wherein the case numbers were mentioned in respect of Crime No.51/2021 field by respondent No.7 on 24.3.2021 and Crime No.103/2021 which was registered by the respondent Nos.5 and 6 on 1.6.2021. It appears after filing of this writ petition, the respondent Nos.5 and 6 were able to get declared this petitioner as rowdy sheeter by taking advantage of the registration of FIR and complaint of respondent No.7 that too without filing charge sheet and registering a false complaint in the name of the respondent No.7 in Crime No.103/2021. Therefore, the contention of the learned HCGP cannot be acceptable that the Court cannot direct for enquiry against the police official on the complaint of the rowdy sheeter.
27
19. Though the counsel for respondent No.7 contended that the petitioner has no locus-standi to file this petition as he is not the owner of the property, the argument of the learned counsel not sustainable as the petitioner himself is accused in those cases and he has been falsely implicated by registering a case in the name of the respondent No.7, such being the case he has every right to file this petition before this Court as his fundamental right is violated.
20. That apart, once the police forged the signature of respondent No.7 registering the false complaint obtaining different search warrant, by misleading the Magistrate, manhandling the petitioner and others, threatening to file false complaints against petitioner and his family members both in drug case and prostitution case, it is necessary to make an enquiry by the higher police officer in the cadre of Superintendent of police in order to come to know whether the signature 28 of respondent No.7 has been forged by the police officer for registering case in Crime No.103/2021 to give a report in order to take further action for filing any complaint against the police officers for the offence punishable under Sections 199 and 200 of IPC.
It is seen from the recent past the police officials are doing work of Panchayath in civil disputes and registering the criminal cases even though the civil disputes brought to their notice. Inspite of issuing circular by the DG and IGP not to register criminal case in respect of civil dispute but still the police personnel registering the criminal cases based upon the civil disputes by adding section 504 and 506 of IPC. Apart from that it is also noted by the court registering the false cases has been increased both against the public as well as police and other officials by misusing the powers for the best reasons known to them either political influence or other influences and that attitude of 29 the police should be curtailed by the Head of the Police Department as well as Home Department and herein after before registering the criminal case if any case against the officials they have to make a preliminary enquiry and follow the guidelines issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari Vs Government of U.P and Ors reported in 2013 SCC Online SC 999, 2014 1 SCC (Cri) 524.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in part. The prayer A for issuing The writ of mandamus or entrusting the investigation to COD in PCR No.214/2021 and PCR No.219/2021 is hereby dismissed for having become infructuous as the Magistrate already taken the cognizance against the respondent Nos.5 to 7 and others.
It is directed the respondent No.2, IG and DGP to entrust the investigation of case in Crime No.195/2020 49/2021 and 51/2021 registered by Sarjapura Police 30 Station and further investigation in Crime No.103/2021 to the COD police.
It is further directed the respondent No.2 DGP and IGP to appoint any superintendent of police to make an enquiry against the respondent Nos.5 and 6 about the veracity of the complaint and registering the FIR in the name of the Rudrappa in Crime No.103/2021 and also obtaining two different search warrants by keeping in mind about the opinion given by Mudra Associates and initiate proceedings against respondent Nos.5 and 6 if they found guilt in forging the signature of respondent No.7/Rudrappa and take action at your end and report to this court within six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE AKV