Dismissed

Sri. Anand Kumar N v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC20 Jan 2021WP/3755/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka disposed of a public interest writ petition challenging the investigation into crime cases. Finding that further investigation is in progress and the CBI expressed unwillingness to take over, the Court held no case for transferring investigation and disposed of the petition without granting relief.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed; no relief granted regarding transfer of investigation, handover of materials, or fresh investigation.

Sri. Anand Kumar N Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO.3755 OF 2020 (GM-RES) PIL

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI ANAND KUMAR N S/O NARAYANAPPA

¶11

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS RESIDING AT No.7

¶12

GOLLAHALLI VILLAGE ANJANAPURA POST

¶13

BENGALURU – 560 062

¶14

SRI SANTHOSH KUMAR G S/O GOPAL RAO K

¶15

AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS

¶16

RESIDING AT No.97/97

¶17

4^TH CROSS, S.O.S. COLLEGE POST

¶18

NEAR OLD GRAMA PANCHAYATH OFFICE

¶19

KOTTHANUR VILLAGE

¶20

BENGALURU – 560 078

¶21

... PETITIONERS

¶22

(BY SHRI K.B.K.SWAMY, ADVOCATE)

¶23

AND:

¶24

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA

¶25

BENGALURU – 560 001

¶26

BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY

¶27

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶28

DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA

¶29

BENGALURU – 560 001

¶30

BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶31

¶32

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY

¶33

#1, INFANTRY ROAD

¶34

BENGALURU – 560 001

¶35

THE INSEPCTOR OF POLICE JALAHALLI POLICE STATION JALAHALLI, BENGALURU – 560 013

¶36

SRI MUNIRATHNA N

¶37

S/O LATE SUBRAMANI NAIDU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS RESIDING AT No.147 11^TH ‘A’ CROSS, VYALLIKAVAL BENGALURU – 560 003

¶38

THE CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION No.36, BELLARY ROAD GANGANAGAR

¶39

BENGALURU – 560 032

¶40

... RESPONDENTS

¶41

(SHRI VIKRAM HUILGOL, AGA FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4 SHRI C.V.NAGESH, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SHRI AJAY KADKOR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.5 SHRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT No.6)

¶42

¶43

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT No.1 AND 2 TO TRANSFER INVESTIGATION OF C.C. 1726 OF 2019 ARISING OUT OF CRIME No.54/2018 PENDING BEFORE THE HON’BLE 7^TH ACMM, BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-S AND C.C.NO.31603/2018 ARISING OUT OF CRIME No.55/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE LXXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS COURT (CCH-82), BENGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-T TO RESPONDENT No.6 (CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION) AND ETC.

¶44

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶45

¶46

ORDER

¶47

By this petition, purportedly filed in public interest, the

¶48

following prayers have been made:

¶49

“A) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing Respondent No.1 and 2 to transfer investigation of C.C.1726 of 2019 arising out of Crime No.54/2018 pending before the Hon’ble 7^th ACMM, Bengaluru vide Annexure-S and C.C.No.31603/2018 arising out of Crime No.55/2018 pending on the file of the Hon’ble LXXXI Additional City Civil and Sessions Court (CCH-82), Bengaluru vide Annexure-T to respondent No.6 (Central Bureau of Investigation);

¶50

B) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing Respondent No.3 and 4 to hand over materials seized and in custody of Respondent No.3 and 4 to Respondent No.6 (Central Bureau of Investigation);

¶51

C) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing Respondent No.6 to conduct fresh/further investigation in the aforementioned cases and direct Respondent No.6 to file fresh/supplementary charge sheet in the matter.”

¶52

The first petitioner is claiming to be a sympathizer of Bharatiya Janatha Party. The second petitioner is also claiming to be a sympathizer of the same party and he claims that he actively canvassed for the candidate of the same party at Rajarajeshwarinagar assembly constituency in 2018 elections.

¶53

¶54

The grievance in the petition is about the investigation carried out in relation to Crime Nos.54 and 55 of 2018. The fifth respondent is stated to be an elected member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly from Rajarajeshwarinagar constituency. It is pointed out in the petition that the fifth respondent has been disqualified by the Hon’ble Speaker by the order dated 28^th July 2019. The ground taken in the petition is that the fifth respondent being a Member of Legislative Assembly from the said constituency is in a position to build considerable clout and therefore, he is able to influence the State police machinery.

¶55

The order passed on 11^th November 2020 takes a note of the fact that the charge sheets have been filed in relation to both the crimes. The said order also noted that a clear stand has been taken by the sixth respondent – Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) expressing its inability to take over the investigation. By the said order, we directed the Director General of Police to appoint a very senior IPS officer to look into the charge sheets filed in connection with both the crimes with a view to ascertain whether a proper investigation has been carried out. The officer so nominated was directed to look into the grievances made in the petition. Accordingly, a

¶56

¶57

detailed report has been filed by the Additional Commissioner of Police, East Bengaluru City who was appointed by the Director General of Police. He has placed on record a detailed report running into 51 pages with several other documents.

¶58

It appears from the report that the petitioners appeared before the said officer on various dates. The officer has dealt with the grievances submitted in writing vide Annexures-1, 2 and 2A to the said report. He has referred to the allegations made in each and every paragraph of the writ petition. The said police officer has found certain lacunae in the investigation, some of which have already been remedied and many others can be corrected during further investigation. It is pointed out that in both the cases, further investigation is being carried out in accordance with sub-section (8) of Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The report records that the allegations made by the petitioners can be kept in mind by the Investigating Officers while carrying out further investigation. It is also recorded in the report that some of the witnesses including the petitioners have not cooperated for the investigation. It is observed by the officer that the allegations and counter allegations can be avoided and for safeguarding

¶59

¶60

their lawful interest, the petitioners should cooperate with the Investigating Officers.

¶61

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners firstly seeks a copy of the said report. Secondly, he submitted that if the allegations made in the petition are perused and the documents are also perused, a case is made out to transfer the investigation to CBI. He submitted that the fifth respondent is interfering in the investigation and there are mala fides on the part of the Investigating Officers.

¶62

We have considered the submissions. As noted earlier, further investigation in both the cases is in progress. As observed in the report submitted by the Additional Commissioner of Police, it is important that the petitioners cooperate for investigation with the Investigating Officers. As the report discloses what has transpired during the investigation, a copy thereof cannot be made available to the petitioners.

¶63

There are several allegations made in the writ petition. We cannot take the allegations made in the petition at its face value as essentially, it appears to us that there may be political rivalry between the petitioners and the fifth respondent.

¶64

¶65

Suffice it to say that at this stage, as observed in the conclusions in the report of the Additional Commissioner of Police, the Investigating Officers will have to bear in mind the allegations made by the petitioners. However, the petitioners will have to cooperate with the Investigating Officers.

¶66

We cannot go into the issue of the merits of the investigation made so far. The reason is that the further investigation is still in progress in both the cases.

¶67

Apart from the fact that CBI has shown unwillingness to take over the investigation, at this stage, we do not find any material to pass a drastic order of transferring the investigation to some other officers or agency. Considering the controversy involved, it will be appropriate if the Director General of Police nominates a senior officer to supervise the further investigation carried out by the Investigating Officers. The Director General of Police shall do the needful and inform the petitioners accordingly. Hence, no case is made out to grant any relief in this petition.

¶68

¶69

Subject to what is observed above, the writ petition is disposed of. The report shall be resealed and kept in a sealed envelope on record.

¶70

The pending interlocutory application does not survives for consideration and stands disposed of.

¶71

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶72

Sd/JUDGE

¶73

AHB

Sri. Anand Kumar N v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Anand Kumar N 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Thagadaiah Vs Smt.Manjula

Sri T S Ramaprasad Vs Smt Manjula

Anil Antony Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Bhagyavathi Vs G C Prakash

Sri P Dinesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Ramanna Vs the State of Karnataka