Karnataka High Court
Mr. Mansoor Ali S/O Abdul Gani Hospet ... vs Mr. Neeralgi on 7 August, 2017
Author: R.B Budihal
Bench: R.B Budihal.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF AUGUST 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BUDIHAL. R.B
WRIT PETITION NO.106629/2017
BETWEEN
MR. MANSOOR ALI S/O ABDUL GANI HOSPET KAZI
AGE:43, OCCUPATION:LECTURER,
GOVT. COLLEGE. HOUSE 123, 5TH CROSS,
TAJ NAGAR UNKAL HUBLI,
HUBLI-31 DIST:DHARWAD
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI MANSOOR ALI, PARTY IN PERSON)
AND
1. MR. NEERALGI
POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR
VIDYANAGAR,PS HUBBALLI
2. MR DESAI HAWALDAR
VIDYANAGAR,PS
HUBBALLI.
3. THE POLICE INSPECTOR
MR.BABA SAHEB HOLLANNAUAR,
VIDYANAGAR,PS HUBBALLI
4. THE ASSISTANT POLICE COMMISSIONER
MR BADEKHAN, ACP
(NORTH HUBLI) HUBLI.
:2:
5. THE POLICE COMMISSIONER
HUBLI-DHARWAD
NAVANAGAR, HUBLI
6. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE
NIRPATHUNGA ROAD
BANGALORE-560001
7. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY PRAVEEN K. UPPAR HCGP.)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE
DIRECTION TO RESPONDENT POLICE PERSONNEL TO
REGISTER THE COMPLAINTS VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND C
AND NECESSARY ACTION MAY BE PLEASED TO TAKEN
AGAINST CONCERNED POLICE RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 5
FOR HAVING NOT REGISTERING THE COMPLAINT GIVEN
BY THE PETITIONER AND TAKE THE LEGAL ACTION AS
PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 154 OF CRPC AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING FURTHER
ARGUMENTS, THIS DAY, THE COURT, MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This writ petition is filed by the petitioner as against the respondents herein under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying the Court to give direction to :3: respondent/Police personnel to register the complaints vide Annexure-A and C and to necessary action against concerned Police i.e., respondents No.1 to 5, for not registering the complaint given by the petitioner and take the legal action as per the provision of Section 154 of Cr.P.C and also prayed to give protection to the petitioner and his family members, so also, he has prayed to give direction to the Director General of Police, Government of Karnataka, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru, to take legal action vide Annexure-F against concerned Police Officers/respondent Nos.1 to 5 for having not registered the complaint given by the petitioner by issuing writ of mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2. The brief facts as averred by the petitioner in the petition are that on 04.04.2017, around 11.00 PM, the petitioner along with his 9 months daughter went outside his house as she was crying and he was about :4: 20 to 25 feet away from his house on the public road, a car bearing Reg. No.KA-25/Z-6158 and another car bearing Reg. No.KA-25/M A-4386 came in high speed in rash and negligent manner, tried to dash against the petitioner and his child which came from the petitioners back side without blowing horn and when the petitioner tried to avoid, at that time the accused tried to dash against the petitioner with an intention to kill him and the his child. Because, these people of the locality are doing illegal acts, which are serious offences, and petitioner brought all these illegalities to the knowledge of the police and other legal authorities by orally and in writing, for which they are dead against the petitioner and they are trying to finish the petitioner by one or the other means. The petitioner was very much shocked with the act of the driver of the vehicle and the petitioner came to know that, the persons, who were in the said cars are Zuber, Mushataq, Basheer, the accused father Nawab Sab M Hebbali and their family :5: members. On the next day morning the petitioner approached to talk with Mr.Nawab Sab Hebbali and about to request him to not do these type of tricks to kill him because he is having a family and dependents, but Nawab sab Hebbali had avoided to talk. On 05.04.2017, the petitioner had made a complaint to Vidya Nagar Police Inspector regarding the last night incident, then the Police Inspector took complaint and sent Police to bring the accused to the Police Station. Mr.Hebbali and his sons came along with Mr.Abdul Aziz Yallapur & his Sons, Mr.Jamadar and his sons, Usaman Mahat and his family members, Khaja Hosmani & his sons, Abdul Goundi & his sons, Irshad A Belapasar, Appa sab Bijapur & his Sons, Mr. Baihatti, who is one of the Director of APMC-Hubballi, and their followers to justify the action of Mr.Hebbali and make influence from political persons Mr.Jagdish Shetter (MLA-Hubballi Central); Mr. Prahalad Joshi (M P-North Dharwad); Mr.Hindisgeri, MLC from APMC constituency and :6: Mr.Rajana Koravi, Corporate from Bhairideverkoppa-Taj Nagar Bolck HDMC-Hubballi. The copy of the complaint is produced herewith and marked as Annexure-A. The allegation of the petitioner as against the respondents/Police that inspite of giving such a complaint, they have not registered a case against the said persons and they have not at all responded to the complaint lodged by the petitioner herein. Being aggrieved by the alleged inaction on the part of the respondents/Police, the petitioner approached this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking to issue appropriate direction as mentioned above.
3. The prosecution filed the statement of objections on behalf of the respondent State, wherein it is stated that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is not maintainable either in law or on facts. On 04.04.2017 there is a life threat to the petitioner and hence he filed the complaint on 05.04.2017 at 23:50 :7: hours before Vidyanagar Police Station, Hubballi and registered as Misc.No.45/2017. Immediately the present Petitioner give a letter on 06.04.2017 at 1:25 a.m stating that against whom the present petitioner had made allegation were pleaded that they will not give any problem to the petitioner and there will be a meeting in this regard at Taj Nagar. Further, the complainant stated that he has not felt any insecurity from one Zubber, Bashir and others, therefore, requested to consider his application by the Police Authority. The persons, against whom the allegations were made by the petitioner, have also gave an undertaking stating that they have also filed complaint against present petitioner and due to intervention of some elders, the matters between present petitioner, and themselves have been settled and further requested to drop the proceedings filed between them at Vidyanagar Police Station against each others. Both letters are herewith produced and marked as Annexures-R1 & R2.
:8:
4. It is further submitted that Police, after closure of the cases, have entered in their Case Diary. A copy of the said Case Diary is herewith produced and marked as Annexure-R3. The respondents have initiated 107 proceeding against the present petitioner and three others persons to prevent further disturbance of peace and tranquility in society. A copy of the FIR in Crime No.90 of 2012 is herewith produced and marked as Annexure-R4. Therefore, it is contended that there is no merit in this writ petition and the petitioner cannot seek at the hands of this Court the above said directions to the respondents/Police to register the case. Hence, submitted to reject the petition.
5. Heard the arguments of the petitioner, who is a party-in-person, and also the arguments of the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent-State. :9:
6. Perused the grounds urged in the petition and also the documents produced by the petitioner along with the petition, so also, the objection statement and the documents at Annexures-R1 to R7 produced by the learned HCGP in support of his contention.
7. Looking to the materials, Annexure-R1 is a letter from the petitioner dated 05.04.2017 addressed to the Police Inspector Vidyanagar Police Station, Hubballi, wherein he has stated that there will be consulting meeting will be at Taj Nagar. Kindly provide some time for consultation. So, he felt no insecurity from Zuber, Basheer and others. Therefore, he requested to accept the said acceptance letter.
8. Apart from that, the complaints on both sides came to be registered, the Station House Diary extract is produced by the HCGP, wherein it clearly shows that firstly the cases were registered and when both the sides approached the Police that there is a : 10 : compromise and both the cases are to be closed, accordingly, the same came to be closed. So prima-facie these materials show that the allegations made by the petitioner in the petition that the Police are inactive, they have not attended to his complaint, becomes prima-facie a false averment in the petition. But regarding the undertaking letter at Annexure-R1, the petitioner, who is a party-in-person, has submitted that it was obtained by the Police forcibly and by bringing pressure on him. If that is so, the petitioner/accused has to take appropriate action for forcing or pressuring him to execute such letter in favour of the Police Officer. For the sake of appreciation, even if it is assumed that if the Police have not taken any action on the complaint of the petitioner in that case, the remedies are available by invoking Section 200 of Cr.P.C., so also, Section 154(3), 156(3) and 190 of Cr.P.C. But the question is whether the petitioner can maintain the writ petition invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C. seeking a direction to the Police : 11 : to register the case. In this connection, I am referring to the judgment of the High Court of Madras decided on 27.09.2016 in the case of Sugesan Transport Pvt. Ltd. vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Police and Ors., wherein it is observed in the Head Note as under:
Criminal - Jurisdiction - Registering of FIR - Section 154(3), 156(3), 190, 200 and 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Present petition filed under Section 482 of Code for direction to Respondents-Police to register Petitioners' complaints - Whether petition under Section 482 of Code for direction to register FIR was maintainable - Held, if police fail to register FIR, complainant should take recourse to Sections 154(3) or 156(3) or 190, of Code read with Section 200 of Code - Where specific provisions exist under Code to deal with given situation, invocation of Section 482 of Code, was clearly barred - Section 482 of Code does not confer power on this Court to step : 12 : into shoes of Station House Officer and take decision - Therefore, petition under Section 482 of Code for direction to register FIR was not maintainable - Petitions dismissed.
9. Therefore, looking to the said decision, invoking Section 482 of Cr.P.C., this Court cannot give such direction to the Police to register a case as sought for by the complainant in this case and he has to invoke appropriate remedy, which is available under law.
With these observations, writ petition is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE BSR