Karnataka High Court
Manjunatha C M vs State Of Karnataka on 19 July, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 158
Bench: Chief Justice, R Devdas
W.A.No.6422/2017
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF JULY, 2018
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R. DEVDAS
WRIT APPEAL NO. 6422 OF 2017 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
MANJUNATHA C M
S/O VEERABHADRAIAH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
R/A NO.82, HANISI VILLAGE & POST
HAGARI BOMMANAHALLI TALUK
BELLARI DISTRICT - 583 135. ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI.VIRUPAKSHAIAH P H, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF
SECRETARY
HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA
SOUDHA, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR
VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE
DAVANAGERE 'C' BLOCK
DEVARAJ URS LAYOUT
DAVANAGERE - 577 006.
3. VIDYANAGAR POLICE STATION
KONDAJJI ROAD, VIDYA NAGAR,
W.A.No.6422/2017
-2-
DAVANAGERE - 577 006.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CIRCLE INSPECTOR. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.S S MAHENDRA, AGA)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE HIGH COURT ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.54211/2016 (GM-POLICE)
DATED 28/06/2017 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE APPELLANT
HEREIN.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appeal is delayed by a period of 102 days as per the office report. An application seeking condonation of delay has been filed. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, while ignoring the delay, we have heard the learned counsel for the appellant to examine if there be any meritorious issue worth consideration.
After having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having perused the material placed on record, we find no reason to consider any interference in this matter. W.A.No.6422/2017 -3-
In short, the substance of the matter remains that, by way of the writ petition, the petitioner/appellant sought orders for inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation into the untimely demise of his son. The learned Single Judge, considering all the factual aspects relating to the matter, found that after investigation, negative final report had been filed by the investigating agency, to which the petitioner/appellant has already filed a protest petition. The learned Single Judge, in order to avoid any prejudice to the petitioner in taking recourse to appropriate remedies in accordance with law, even while dismissing the writ petition, observed and provided as under:
"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 hereinabove for dismissing this petition. Similarly, if the petitioner chooses to file any suit for W.A.No.6422/2017 -4- 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."
The observations so made by the learned Single Judge are in accord with reasons as also with the principles governing writ jurisdiction. We are unable to find any case of error or infirmity so as to call for interference in this intra Court appeal.
The appeal fails and is, therefore, dismissed. The pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/-
JUDGE brn