Karnataka High Court
S R I Nagaraj Poojary vs The State Of Karnataka on 9 August, 2024
Author: M.G.S. Kamal
Bench: M.G.S. Kamal
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:32098
WP No. 23458 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
WRIT PETITION NO. 23458 OF 2021 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
S R I NAGARAJ POOJARY
S/O LATE HERIYA POOJARY
AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS
R/O HOLEBAGILU
MACHATTU VILLAGE
KUNDAPAURA TQ
UDUPI DIST - 577 202.
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. URMILA PULLAT.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
AMBEDAKR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
Digitally signed
by SUMA B N
Location: High 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
Court of HOME DEPARTMENT
Karnataka GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
3. THE DIRECTOR-GENERAL AND I.G.P.
KARNATAKA
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD
NUNEGUNDLAPALLI
AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU - 560 001.
4. THE INSPCETOR-GENERAL OF POLICE
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:32098
WP No. 23458 of 2021
WESTERN RANGE
NEAR FORUM FIZA MALL
PANDESHWAR, MANGALORE
KARNATAKA - 575 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA S.H. AGA)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY R-4 DATED:10.03.2021 ANNX-E TO THE
WRIT PETITION. DIRECT THE R-1 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE
REPRESENTATION DTD. 06.01.2021 (ANNX-D).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN
'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL
ORAL ORDER
Petitioner is before this Court with a short grievance of rejection of application filed by the petitioner seeking sanction to prosecute the Sub-Inspector of Amasebailu Police Station, Kundapura Taluk, Udupi District under Section 197 of Cr.P.C read with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 for the alleged atrocity he had committed on the petitioner on 26.03.2020.
2. Case of the petitioner is that the said date fell during the COVID-19 Pandemic when the nation wide lock- -3-
NC: 2024:KHC:32098 WP No. 23458 of 2021 down had been declared and that the petitioner had gone out to fetch medicines for his aged mother. While he was returning to his home, the aforesaid Sub-Inspector intercepted, prevented and abused him and physically assaulted him and took him to the police station and lathi- charged him and subjected him to all sort of physical and mental harassment. Petitioner therefore filed a private complaint before the Addl. Civil Judge and JMFC at Kundapur, Udupi in PCR No.178/2020 and the petitioner was called upon to submit sanction obtained under Section 196 Cr.PC. Accordingly, petitioner filed application dated 06.01.2021 as per Annexure-D addressing the same to the respondents herein seeking grant of sanction required under Section 197 of Cr.P.C read with Section 170 of the Karnataka Police Act to prosecute the aforesaid Sub- Inspector. That in response to the same, an endorsement dated 10.03.2021 as per Annexure-E came to be issued. -4-
NC: 2024:KHC:32098 WP No. 23458 of 2021
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned endorsement is unsustainable as the grounds urged by the petitioner have not been considered while rejecting the same. That the law mandates concerned respondents to apply their mind to the averments made in the application seeking sanction. An application of mind shall reflect in the order passed. Short of it, any order/endorsement is illegal as the same is arbitrary. Hence, the petition. Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of MANSUKHLAL VITHALDAS CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF GUJARAT reported in (1997) 7 SCC 622 in support of her submission.
4. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that private complaint filed in PCR No.178/2020 by the petitioner is a counter blast to the proceedings that were initiated against the petitioner under Crime No.15/2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 323 and 353 of IPC and Section 3 of the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897. It is his -5- NC: 2024:KHC:32098 WP No. 23458 of 2021 submission that present complaint and the application seeking sanction is only to over come the complaint which is filed having no substance. As such, the endorsement in question came to be issued. Hence, seeks for dismissal of the petition.
5. Heard. Perused the records.
6. Endorsement in question which is issued in response to the application filed by the petitioner on 06.01.2021, reads as under;
ಂಬರಹ
ಾವ ಈ ಕ ೇ ೆ ಸ ರುವ : 06-01-2021 ರ ಮನ ಯನು
ಪ ೕ ಸ ಾ ೆ. ಈ ಬ ೆ! " ೕ# ಅ%ೕ&ಕರು, ಉಡು)
* ೆರವ ಂದ ಪ,ೆದ ವರ ಯ ಆ.ಾರದ ತಮ ೆ ಕಲಂ 197
.ಆ1.) 2ಾಗೂ ಕಲಂ 170 ಕ5ಾ6ಟಕ " ೕ# 2ಾ89 ಅ:ಯ ಅ;ಾ<ೆ=ೈಲು ?ಾ@ಾ ).ಎ#.ಐ ಅCD ಕು;ಾ1 ರವರ ರುದE ಾಖ ದ GHIನD Jಕದ9K Lಾರ@ೆ ನ,ೆಸಲು Mಾಗೂ D Jಕದ9K ಕೂಡಲು ಅನುಮN Cೕಡ ಾಗುವ ಲOೆಂದು ಈ ಮೂಲಕ NPಯಪ:ಸ ಾ ೆ.
"ಐ*), ಪ Qಮ ವಲಯ ರವ ಂದ ಆ ೇ ಸಲRST ೆ".-6-
NC: 2024:KHC:32098 WP No. 23458 of 2021
7. Application filed by the petitioner runs into seven pages. It also refers to eight documents which has been relied upon by the petitioner in support of the averments and allegations made in the said application seeking grant of sanction under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. In contrast, the endorsement which is extracted herein above, to say the least is cryptic and bereft of any details. Provision contemplate that consideration/application of mind by the respondent -authorities, while granting or rejecting the sanction sought for, should reflect in the order impugned, specifically referring to the material which relied upon by the applicant. Not even a whisper of the averments, allegations made in the application and the documents relied upon by the petitioner in the impugned endorsement. Not to mention the arbitrary language used straight away rejecting the application found in the endorsement.
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of MANSUKHLAL VITHALDAS CHAUHAN VS. STATE OF -7- NC: 2024:KHC:32098 WP No. 23458 of 2021 GUJARAT reported in (1997) 7 SCC 622 at paragraphs 18 and 19 has held as under;
"18. The validity of the sanction would, therefore, depend upon the material placed before the sanctioning authority and the fact that all the relevant facts, material and evidence have been considered by the sanctioning authority. Consideration implies application of mind. The order of sanction must ex facie disclose that the sanctioning authority had considered the evidence and other material placed before it. This fact can also be established by extrinsic evidence by placing the relevant files before the Court to show that all relevant facts were considered by the sanctioning authority. (See also Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1958 SC 124.
19. Since the validity of "sanction" depends on the applicability of mind by the sanctioning authority to the facts of the case as also the material and evidence collected during investigation, it necessarily follows that the sanctioning authority has to apply its own independent mind for the generation of genuine satisfaction whether prosecution has to be sanctioned or not. The mind of the sanctioning authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon it to take a decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration. If it is shown that the sanctioning authority was unable to apply its independent mind for any reason whatsoever or was under an -8- NC: 2024:KHC:32098 WP No. 23458 of 2021 obligation or compulsion or constraint to grant the sanction, the order will be bad for the reason that the discretion of the authority "not to sanction" was taken away and it was compelled to act mechanically to sanction the prosecution".
9. In the light of the aforesaid facts and the law enunciated by the Apex Court extracted hereinabove, petition succeeds, following;
ORDER
(i). The Endorsement dated 10.03.2021 issued by the respondent No.4 at Annexure-E is quashed.
(ii). The matter remitted to the concerned respondent -authority to pass appropriate orders keeping in mind the aforesaid observations and the law laid down by the Apex Court, extracted hereinabove, and if required a personal hearing of the matter be given to the petitioner and thereafter pass speaking order adverting to the averments made in the application and the materials/documents enclosed there with. Such exercise shall be -9- NC: 2024:KHC:32098 WP No. 23458 of 2021 done within an outer limit of three (3) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RU, List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28