Karnataka High Court
S M Alex vs State Of Karnataka on 11 March, 2020
Bench: Alok Aradhe, M.Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2020
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT APPEAL NO.5787/2013(GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
1. S.M. ALEX
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
S/O LATE M.M.ALEXANDER,
NO.35, 2ND CROSS,D'COSTA SQUARE,
COOKE TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 084.
2. RANI M. ALEX
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
W/O S.M.ALEX,
NO.35, 2ND CROSS,
D' COSTA SQUARE,
COOKE TOWN,
BENGALURU - 560 084.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI C.V.NAGESH, SENIOR ADV. A/W.
SRI RAGHAVENDRA K., ADV. FOR
C.V.NAGESH ASSOCIATES)
2
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. HOME SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
KARNATAKA STATE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. STATION HOUSE OFFICER
BMTF, BBMP MAIN OFFICE,
BENGALURU CITY - 560 002.
5. SRI R.P.SHARMA
ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
BMTF, BBMP MAIN OFFICE,
BENGALURU CITY - 560 002.
6. SRI C.R.RAJENDRA
POLICE INSPECTOR
BMTF, BBMP MAIN OFFICE,
BENGALURU CITY - 560 002.
7. M.SRINIVAS
VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT,
DODDAGUBBI CIRCLE,
BENGALURU - 560 071.
3
8. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION,
BELLARY ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 032.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.V.KRISHNA, AGA FOR R1 - R4;
SRI NAVKESH BATRA, ADV. FOR
SRI JANEKERE C. KRISHNA, ADV. FOR R5;
SRI AMIT DESHPANDE, ADV. FOR R6;
SRI GURURAJ JOSHI, ADV. FOR R7;
SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADV. FOR R8)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF
THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET
ASIDE ORDER PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NOS.2682-
83/2012 DATED 14.08.2013.
THIS WRIT APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this intra-court appeal, the appellants have assailed the validity of the order dated 14.08.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.Nos.2682-83/2012 by which, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners seeking the following reliefs have been dismissed:
"PRAYER
31. Therefore, the petitioners above named, humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:4
(a) call for the records in FIR No.10/2011 registered at BMTF police station, BBMP Main Building, Bengaluru, for an offence which is made penal under Section 192(a) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964, the first information of which, is submitted to the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, which is produced and marked as Annexure - A.1.
(b) issue an Order, Writ or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the first information report in Crime No.10/2011 registered at BMTF police station, BBMP Main Building, Bengaluru, for an offence which is made penal under Section 192(a) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 as per Annexure - A.1.
(c) declare that the investigation in relation to the case in F.I.R. No.10/2011 is nothing but an abuse of process of law and the powers conferred upon the police under the statute;
(d) issue a Writ, Order or direction directing respondents 1 to 3 to hold an enquiry against respondents 5 and 6 in relation to their conduct earlier to and from the stage of registration of the Crime till the date of the arrest of the first 5 petitioner and the acts done subsequent thereto which conduct has infringed the basic human rights of the first petitioner;
(e) directing the eighth respondent to register a case against respondents 5 to 7 for appropriate offences which are made penal under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Indian Penal Code and other offences committed by them under various enactments, investigate into it and to bring them to books, so that, they are dealt with and punished accordingly;
(f) directing respondents 1, 2, 5,6 and 7 to pay to the petitioners either jointly or severally a sum of Rs.1 Crore as compensation for the injury, loss and suffering which they have undergone consequent to the unauthorized acts committed by the respondents5 and 6."
2. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that after dismissal of the writ petitions, the police authorities have completed investigation and have filed the charge sheet against the petitioners before the Court of competent jurisdiction. However, the Court did not take cognizance of the charge 6 sheet. Being aggrieved, the State has filed a Criminal Revision Petition, which is pending adjudication before this Court.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 and 6 at the outset submitted that in fact, the petitioners have filed a composite petition seeking reliefs under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. as well as Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is further submitted that since the learned Single Judge has exercised the powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this writ appeal is not maintainable. In support of their aforesaid submission, reliance is placed on the following decisions rendered by this Court:
"1. Manoj vs. The State by Assistant Public prosecutor in Writ Appeal No.100012/2018 D.D.on 06.02.2018;
2. Nijaguni Sitaram Badiger Vs. Taluka Executive Magistrate in Writ Appeal No.100643/2017 D.D.on 23.07.2018;7
3. Sri Sachin Narayan Vs. The Income Tax Department in Writ Appeal Nos.3611/2019 and connected matters D.D. on 17.09.2019."
4. We have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
5. It is well settled law that this Court does not decide an academic issue. In the considered opinion of this Court, the issue involved in this writ appeal insofar as it pertains to quashing of FIR has been rendered academic inasmuch as the police after completion of the investigation has filed the charge sheet and the charge sheet has not been accepted by the competent Court and against the aforesaid order, the State has filed revision petition which is pending adjudication before this Court. Therefore, in view of the subsequent events which have taken place after filing of the writ petitions, it is not necessary to deal with the contentions raised by the respondents with regard to the maintainability of the writ 8 appeal at this point of time. However, the appeal is disposed of with liberty to the appellants to revive the same as and when occasion arises.
6. With the aforesaid liberty, the appeal is disposed of.
It is needless to state that all rights of the parties are kept open.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE nvj