Quashed

Sri Prakash K v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jul 2022WP/46757/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court quashed an order passed by the State Human Rights Commission finding a police officer guilty of misconduct, condemning the failure to provide a hearing before issuing an adverse order, and also disallowed relying on an investigation report against the accused without giving them a chance to rebut its contents.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 06.08.2011 passed by the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission was quashed. The Report dated 11.10.2010 cannot be held against the petitioner unless an opportunity to respond is give

Sri Prakash K Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION No.46757 OF 2011(GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN

¶6

SRI PRAKASH K AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O SRI KESHAVA WORKING AS POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR MESCOM VIGILANCE MANGALORE KARNATAKA STATE ...PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI P D SUBRAHMANYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI S P KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND

¶9

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE- 01

¶10

2 . THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE MANGALORE CITY MANGALORE

¶11

3 . THE KARNATAKA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION BANGALORE

¶12

REP BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶13

4 . SRI GANGADHARA SHETTY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS S/O KITTANNA SHETTY

¶14

¶15

ADYAR PADAVU HOUSE ADYAR POST, MANGALORE

¶16

5 . SRI JOYAL PRAVEEN VAS AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS S/O SRI JUSTIN VAAS R/O JMJ VILLA, ADYAR PADAVU, ADYAR, MANGALORE

¶17

6 . SRI JUSTIN VAS AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O LAWRANCE VAAS R/O JMJ VILLA, ADYAR PADAVU, ADYAR, MANGALORE

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI SHIVANANDA D S, AGA FOR R1 & R2

¶20

MS. MEGHANA T M, ADVOCATE FOR R3

¶21

MS. BHAVANA AA & VEENA RAI, ADVOCATES FOR R5 & R6 R4 SERVED)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DT 6.8.11 PASSED BY THE R3 HEREIN, BEING ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS, AND OPPOSED TO LAW VIDE ANNX-P QUASH THE REPORT DATED 11.10.10 ISSUED BY THE DYQ COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, LAW & ORDER MANGALORE CITY MANGALORE VIDE ANNX-M AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The present Writ Petition is filed calling in question the order dated 06.08.2011 passed in Case No.H.R.C./5242/2010(B-3) by the Respondent No.3 as well

¶26

¶27

as the Report No.H.R.C./DCP-1/MN/2010, dated 11.10.2010, issued by Respondent No.2.

¶28

It is the case of the Petitioner that he is an honest and loyal Police Officer discharging his duties as Sub Inspector of Police, Mangaluru. Crime No.139/2010 was registered in the Mangaluru Rural Police Station on 02.6.2010. That, various allegations were sought to be made against the Petitioner with regard to ill-treatment of Respondent No.4 to Respondent No.6, who are the accused persons in Crime No.139/2010 and wide publicity to the same was given in newspapers, as a result of which, the Respondent No.3 sought for a Report from the Deputy Commissioner of Police with regard to the alleged incident.

¶29

It is the contention of the Petitioner that he was not in station on the said date i.e., 02.06.2010 and he has gone outside the Police Station in connection with investigation of another Crime No.138/2010.

¶30

The Respondent No.3, based on the Report dated 11.10.2010 submitted by the Respondent No.2,

¶31

¶32

passed an order dated 06.08.2011. The order dated 06.08.2011 as well as the Report dated 11.10.2010 are impugned in the present in Writ Petition.

¶33

It is noticed that before passing the order dated 06.08.2011, the Respondent No.3 has not afforded an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Since the said order dated 06.08.2011 adversely affect the Petitioner, an opportunity is required to be furnished to the Petitioner to respond to the allegations made against him and to put forth his say.

¶34

Insofar as the Report dated 11.10.2010, it was not necessary to hear the Petitioner as the said Report was sought by the Respondent No.3 from the Deputy Commissioner in view of the press reports.

¶35

Having regard to the aforementioned, the order dated 06.08.2010 passed by the Respondent No.3 is hereby quashed. Liberty is reserved to the Respondent No.3 to pass such orders as it deems fit, after giving an opportunity to the Petitioner.

¶36

¶37

Insofar as the Report dated 11.10.2010, in the event the said Report is sought to be held against the Petitioner, an opportunity is required to be afforded to the Petitioner to respond to the contents of the Report and for his say regarding the same.

¶38

Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed off in

the above terms.

No costs.

Sd/JUDGE

Sri Prakash K v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Prakash K v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri M Munikrishna @ Babu Vs Smt S Shanthakumari

Sri Rangaswamaiah Vs the Karnataka State Small

M/S. Ramsons Garment Finishing Equipments Pvt. Ltd. Vs Government of India

Sri N Harish Vs Smt Y Keertana

Thyagaraj S Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri P Bachegowda Vs State of Karnataka