Disposed

Smt. Kavya K M v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2021WP/22401/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the non-transfer of a criminal investigation to another agency and seeking disciplinary action against police sub-inspectors. The Court held that the petitioner can seek additional evidence through Section 319 of CrPC and apply for a special public prosecutor, rendering further orders unnecessary.

What the court decided

AI extract

Smt. Kavya K M Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 09^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.22401 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Smt. Kavya K.M., Aged about 31 years, W/o Yashodhara Gowda, D/o K.R.Mallegowda, R/at Doddakodli, Kodlipete, Somvarapete Taluk, Kodagu-571231.

¶8

…Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri Yathisha K J, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

State of Karnataka Represented by The Home Department Bengaluru-560001.

¶12

The Director General of Police, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru City-560051.

¶13

The Superintendent of Police, Office of Superintendent of Police, R.C.Road, Opp. Govt Hospital, Hassan-573201.

¶14

The Additional Superintendent of Police, Rangoli Halla, Hassan-573201.

¶15

:: 2 ::

¶16

5.	The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Rangoli Halla, Hassan-573201.
6.	Sri Pramod Kumar, Police Inspector, Hassan Women Police Station, Hassan-573201.
7.	Smt. Rekha Bhai M.H., Police Inspector, Hassan Women Police Station, Hassan-573201.
8.	Sri Yashodhara Gowda, S/o Jayadeve Gowda, Aged about 36 years, R/at Vathsalya Nilaya, Udayagiri Extension, Hassan City, Hassan-573201.
9.	Smt. Vathsalya, W/o Anand, Aged about 40 years, R/at Vathsalya Nilaya, Udayagiri Extension, Hassan City, Hassan-573201. …Respondents

¶17

(By Sri B.J.Rohith, HCGP for R1)

¶18

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, praying to direct R2 to entrust the investigation to COD or any other investigation agency in CR.No.0030/2021, filed by the Hassan Women Police Station, in C.C.No.2201/2021 pending on the file of the IV Additional Civil Judge and JMFC at Hassan.

¶19

This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing this day, the Court made the following:

¶20

:: 3 ::

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Heard Sri Yathisha K J, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri B.J.Rohith, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1State, who has taken notice now.

¶23

In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ of mandamus to direct the second respondent to entrust the investigation to COD or any other investigation agency. She has also sought a writ in the nature of mandamus to initiate disciplinary action against respondents 6 and 7, who are police sub inspectors.

¶24

The petitioner is the de-facto

¶25

complainant in Crime No.30/2021. FIR was registered in relation to offences punishable under Sections 498A, 307, 504, 506 and 114 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶26

:: 4 ::

¶27

According to the petitioner, accused

¶28

No.3, Vathsalya is also involved in commission of offence. But the investigating officer has inserted a further statement which she has not given and based on the said further statement, the investigating officer dropped accused No.3 from the charge sheet. But the petitioner says that she did not give any such further statement and she suspects the hands of the investigating officers in dropping accused No.3.

¶29

If this is the grievance of the petitioner,

¶30

when she is summoned to Court as a witness, if according to her, accused No.3 also subjected her to harassment, she can give evidence against accused No.3, so that the Court at that time can proceed against accused No.3 under Section 319 of Cr.P.C. Since already charge sheet is filed, I do not think there is necessity to order for investigation by another agency.

¶31

:: 5 ::

¶32

Another grievance of the petitioner is

¶33

that the present public prosecutor is not cooperating with her. If this is her case, she can apply to the Government for appointing a special public prosecutor. Therefore with these

¶34

observations, this writ petition is disposed of .

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Kmv/-

Smt. Kavya K M v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Smt. Kavya K M v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Pattabhiraman Vs State of Karnataka

Somashekar @Soma Vs State by

Sri Alok Bansal Vs State of Karnataka

T P Kari Gowda Vs the State by Acb Police

Sri Shivaprasad Vs State by

The State of West Bengal by Vs the State of Karnataka by