Allowed

Mr. Ramesh Bettaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2020WP/51306/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court set aside an endorsement rejecting the petitioner's grievance about un-named children in insurance bonds, holding it had no bearing on the issue. It clarified the PMO communication did not meet Section 154 Cr.P.C. requirements for a cognizable offence but left liberty to file a proper complaint.

What did the court decide?

The impugned endorsement (Annexure-A) was set aside. The petition was disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate complaint under Section 154 Cr.P.C. if desired.

Mr. Ramesh Bettaiah Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA

¶6

W.P.NO.51306 OF 2019 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. RAMESH BETTAIAH S/O LATE MR. BETTAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT NO.823 SRS ROAD PEENYA, BENGALURU – 560 058

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADV. FOR SMT. NALINA MAYEGOWDA, ADV.)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS

¶13

REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU – 560 001

¶14

DIRECTOR GENERAL AND

¶15

INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001

¶16

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DISTRICT POLICE OFFICE

¶17

¶18

TUMAKURU DISTRICT TUMAKURU – 572 107

¶19

CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TUMAKURU RURAL POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU – 572 107

¶20

SRI. D. C. GOWRI SHANKAR SWAMY S/O LATE SRI. C. CHENNIGAPPA AGED 42 YEARS R/AT DODDAHUCHAINAPALAYA NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL – 562 123

¶21

(AS PER COURT ORDER DATED 29.09.2020 AMENDMENT CARRIED OUT)

¶22

… RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. K. P. YASHODHA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. RAVI. B. NAIK, SENIOR ADV. FOR SRI. MAHESH C. M. ADV. FOR R5)

¶24

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NUMBER E- SPANDANA/51733308/2019 DATED NOVEMBER 2, 2019 (ANNEXURE-A); AND ETC.

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

¶28

O R D E R

¶29

Heard Sri.Jayakumar S.Patil, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner; learned High Court Government Advocate appearing for respondents 1 to 4 and Sri.Ravi B Naik, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.5.

¶30

Petitioner is aggrieved by the endorsement issued by the Superintendent of Police, Tumkur District whereby the petitioner is informed that the grievance submitted by him could not be received in view of the order passed by this court in Crl.P.6604/2019 resulting in closure of the proceedings in Crime No.97/2018, subsequently numbered as C.C.No.2493/2018.

¶31

Undisputedly, petitioner herein submitted a grievance to the Prime Minister’s Office with regard to issuance of insurance bonds in respect of 1600 children without naming any of them. The said grievance was forwarded to the Director General of Police to take necessary action. It is stated that the

¶32

¶33

Director General of Police forwarded the same to the Superintendent of Police, Tumkur District who has issued the impugned endorsement.

¶34

It is seen from the records that Criminal Petition No.6604/2019 was filed by one Smt.Gowramma and Sri.Anantha against the State of Karnataka and Sri.Rangaswamy challenging the proceedings initiated against them for the alleged violation of Section 127A of the Representative of People Act 1950, 1951, 1980 and Section 171F of IPC. Since the said offences were non-cognizable, the learned Magistrate endorsed his permission to investigate into the alleged offences. However, the said endorsement being contrary to the decision of this Court in W.P.Nos.42073-42075 of 2018, by order dated 17.9.2019 Criminal Petition No.6604/2019 was allowed; the impugned endorsement was set aside and the proceedings in C.C.No.2493/2018 pending on the file of the First Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Tumkur was quashed.

¶35

¶36

The above proceedings have no bearing whatsoever to the grievance made by the petitioner to the Prime Minister’s office and the communication addressed to the Superintendent of Police, as such, the endorsement issued by the Superintendent of Police, Tumkur-Annexure-A cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. To this extent petitioner is entitled for the relief claimed in the petition.

¶37

Petitioner has further prayed for a mandamus directing respondents No.3 and 4 to take speedy and effective investigation as per Annexure-H dated 16.8.2018. By the said communication, Annexure-H, the Director General of Police had directed the Superintendent of Police to take appropriate action in respect of the grievance made by the petitioner to the Prime Minister’s office.

¶38

As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.5, grievance made by the petitioner to the Prime Minister’s office does not satisfy the ingredients of a complaint as required under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. As per this provision,

¶39

¶40

every information relating to the commission of a cognizable offence, if given orally to an officer of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, shall be signed by the person giving it, and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in this behalf.

¶41

Since the communication addressed to the Superintendent of Police did not contain necessary allegations constituting cognizable offence and it was merely a grievance submitted to the Prime Minister’s office to take necessary action, the respondent No.3-Superintendent of Police cannot be directed to register a complaint based on the said grievance. It is always open to the petitioner to make a complaint in terms of Section 154 of Cr.P.C. by making out the ingredients of criminal offence which could be investigated by the police in terms of Section 157 of Cr.P.C. Hence, reserving liberty to the petitioner to make an

¶42

¶43

appropriate complaint in terms of Section 154 of Cr.P.C., if desired, the petition is disposed of.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

Mr. Ramesh Bettaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Ramesh Bettaiah v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Udaykumar Vs State of Karnataka

K Mehfuz Ali Khan Vs State of Karnataka by

Smt. Rani Samyuktha Vs State of Karnataka by

Manjunath R Vs State of Karnataka

Sri D C Gowri Shankar Swamy Vs State of Karnataka

Rakesh @ Roshan Vs the State of Karnataka