Karnataka High Court
The Superintendent Of Police vs Sri Rajesh on 4 July, 2012
Author: K.L.Manjunath
Bench: K.L.Manjunath
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.L.MANJUNATH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.SURI APPARAO
WRIT APPEAL No. 2026 OF 2007 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
1. The Superintendent of Police
Dakshina Kannada
Mangalore - 575001
2. The Sub-Inspector of Police
Moodabidri Police Station
Moodabidri
D.K. District ...APPELLANTS
(By: K.V. Narasimhan, Adv)
AND:
1. Sri. Rajesh
Aged about 30 years
S/o Sadashiva Acharya
Tempo Driver
Residing near Durgaparameshwari
Kukkundoor, Jodurasthe
Karkala Taluk
Udupi District
2
2. The Secretary
Department of Home
Government of Karnataka
Vidhana Soudha
Bangalore - 560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(By: Sri. P.P. Hegde, Adv. for R1,
Sri. M. Keshava Reddy, AGA for R2)
This Writ appeal is filed under Section 4 of the
Karnataka High Corut Act praying to set aside the order
passed in WP No. 25895/2005 dated 19.07.20076.
This appeal coming on for Hearing this day, V. Suri
Apparao, Judge delivered the following:
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed challenging the correctness and legality of the order dated 19.07.2007 by the learned single judge in W.P. No. 25895/2005. Whereby the learned single judge directed the third respondent to register the FIR based on the complaint at Annexure-B and to investigate the alleged offence by an officer who is not below the rank of the Inspector General of Police to initiate departmental enquiry into the cause of commission of the alleged incidence stated to have been committed by the constable by name Girish and another police constable and also directed the respondents to 3 pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- with a cost of Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner towards damages. Aggrieved by the above order the appellant/Superintendent of Police of Dakshina Kannada, Mangalore files this appeal.
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
On the intervening night of 19/20th June 2005, the first respondent was going from Moodabidri, to Alangar, two police constables in uniform stopped him and enquired as to where he was going. One of the constable acted highhandedly and wrongfully restrained him and abused him in foul language and assaulted him with hands and lathies, stamped on his stomach with shoes and when he cried for help, one police constable forcibly thrust a cloth piece into his mouth and again started hitting him with lathies and stamped with their shoes. They also snatched Rs.4,200/- which was kept in the shirt pocket of the first respondent and threatened him that they will not allow him to live, if he reveals this incident to anybody. On the next day morning, he went to the Government Hospital of Moodubidri and on the advice of the 4 doctors there, he took treatment in District Wenlock Hospital at Mangalore. The first respondent herein, informed about the above incident to the duty doctors of Moodubidri Government Hospital. As it was a medico-legal case, the hospital authorities sent information to the police station. Police came to the hospital and recorded the statement of the first respondent and did not register any police case. Subsequently, on 22.06.2005, the first respondent along with his employer Mr. Srinivas Kini went to the Police Station, Moodabidri met the Police Sub-Inspector, by name Umapathi, showed the fractured hand but he refused to register any case. Thereafter he approached the Superintendent of Police, Dakshina Kanndaa, the appellant herein on 20.06.2005 and submitted a written complaint and also sent copy of the complaint through RPAD. This incident was published as news item in 'UshaKirana' Kannada daily dated 26.09.2005 and also in 'Vijayakirana' another Kannada daily dated 29.06.2005 .5
3. Inspite of the best efforts of the injured-first respondent, no case is registered against the constables and not even a departmental action is initiated against them. Therefore, he filed a writ petition before the learned single judge and claimed award of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. After hearing the matter, the learned single judge passed the above order with a cost of Rs.1,000/- for inaction on the part of the appellants. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned single judge the appellants filed this appeal.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent.
5. Learned Government pleader submitted that the respondent has not produced any medical certificate, evidencing the fracture to his right hand and that the learned single judge who is justified in awarding huge amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Admittedly, the first respondent who said to have been sustained fracture to his right hand did not produce any medical certificate. He also 6 did not disclose the identity of the constables in the complaint except the name of one constable by name Girish.
6. Learned Government pleader further submitted that as per the directions issued by the learned single judge, the appellant registered case against two constables responsible for the alleged incident in Crime No. 28/LCR/Petition/05 and took up investigation and after investigation the appellant police came to the conclusion that no such incident had taken place on the alleged date i.e., on the intervening night of 19/20.06.2005 and submitted 'B' Report.
7. If the first respondent is aggrieved by the 'B' Report, submitted by the police stating that no such incident has taken place, it is always open for him to file a private complaint before the competent criminal court for the alleged offence. Even for the inaction of the police in not registering the case against the police constables who are stated to have been involved in the commission of the offence, the first 7 respondent has directly filed writ petition claiming compensation without producing any medical certificate to prove the injuries alleged to have been sustained in the incident at the hands of the two police constables. Considering the facts and circumstances, learned single judge who was justified in directing the police - appellant to register the case and investigate into the case and to take departmental action against the constables. But the learned single judge was not justified in awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards damages without any prior investigation and report about the alleged incident, in the absence of medical evidence about the injuries and the involvement of two constables in the incident.
8. In view of the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the order of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- passed by the learned single judge is not warranted at the initial stage, that too even before the initiation of the enquiry or investigation. Therefore, we are of the view that the order of awarding a compensation of 8 Rs.1,00,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/- for inaction on the part of the appellants is liable to be set aside.
Accordingly the appeal is allowed by setting aside the order of the learned single judge, insofar as, awarding compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and cost of Rs.10,000/-.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE Bsv