Dismissed

Dr. Madhukar G. Angur v. the Chief Secretary

Karnataka HC7 Feb 2023CRL.P/407/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought transfer of murder investigation to CBI alleging local police bias and involvement of an advocate. High Court dismissed petition as press conference statements lacked evidentiary value and no material substantiated alleged investigation lapses.

What did the court decide?

Relief sought for transfer of investigation to CBI dismissed; interlocutory applications dismissed.

Dr. Madhukar G. Angur Vs the Chief Secretary — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - CRL.P No. 407 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 7^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 407 OF 2023

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

DR. MADHUKAR G. ANGUR, S/O LATE SHRI GUDDAPPA BASAPPA ANGUR, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.803, G-BLOCK, MANTRI ESPANA, NEAR SAKRA OLD HOSPITAL, OUTER RING ROAD, BELLANDUR, BENGALURU-560 103.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. PAVANA CHANDRA SHETTY H., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶13

PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶14

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (CBI), REPRESENTED BY THE OFFICE OF SP, NO.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032.

¶15

¶16

CRL.P No. 407 of 2023

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BANGALORE CITY, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶18

POLICE INSPECTOR, R T NAGAR POLICE STATION, R T NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1, R2, R4 AND R5; SRI. C V NAGESH, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. P PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. C.H. HANUMANTHARAYA, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION THEREBY DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE ON 24.11.2022 AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND B OF PETITION, AND FURTHER DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO REGISTER FIR UNDER SECTION 154 OF CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE WITH A FURTHER DIRECTION TO RESPONDENT NO.3 TO INVESTIGATE INTO THE CASE REGISTERED IN CR.NO.219/2019 BEFORE R.T. NAGAR POLICE STATION/ RESPONDENT NO.5, BENGALURU CITY BY TRANSFERRING THE SAME FROM RESPONDENT NO.5 TO RESPONDENT NO.3 FOR DETAIL INVESTIGATION SINCE CIRCUMSTANCES JUSTIFYING.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The factual matrix of the case is as under:

¶25

3 - CRL.P No. 407 of 2023

¶26

One Dr.Pavana Dibbur lodged the FIR on 16.10.2019 at about 6.00 a.m. alleging that, her husband was brutally murdered by unknown persons on 15.10.2019. The Police registered the FIR for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Police, during the course of the investigation recorded the statement of the defacto complainant and also the petitioner- CW-78 and after investigation, laid the charge-sheet before the learned Magistrate against as many as 15 accused persons.

¶27

The matter was committed to the Sessions Court and upon committal, the learned Sessions Judge took cognizance of the aforesaid offence. The petitioner is CW-78 in the charge-sheet and his statement under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. was recorded on 28.10.2019, 01.11.2019 and 03.11.2019 respectively and thereafter, his statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. was recorded before the learned Magistrate on 07.01.2020. It is also relevant to mention here that the petitioner had also lodged the FIR on 17.10.2019 against 16 persons alleging that he was threatened with dire consequences and also given a life threat by 15 persons stated in the FIR. The police having not registered the FIR, the petitioner approached the higher officials on 19.09.2020 to take action against the persons who had threatened him with dire consequences and also given a life threat. Since no action was taken, the petitioner filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. The said complaint came to be rejected for noncompliance of Section 154(2) and (3) of Cr.P.C.

¶28

¶29

CRL.P No. 407 of 2023

¶30

Such being the case, the petitioner submitted a representation with the first respondent to hand over the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation in Crime No.219 of 2019 registered by the R.T.Nagar Police Station, Bengaluru City. The petitioner's grievance is that the said representation has not been considered.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner would make the

¶32

following submissions:

¶33

Firstly, the petitioner who is the charge-sheet witness No.78 has the locus-standi to maintain this petition as enumerated under Article 350 of the Constitution of India.

¶34

The then Commissioner of Police had made a categorical statement in the press conference that there was an involvement of a prominent Advocate in Crime No.219 of 2019 and the Investigating Agency ignoring the said statement has not made any efforts to conduct investigation into the statement, which otherwise would have implicated the Advocate who had played a role in the murder of the husband of the defacto complainant. The Investigating Agency during the course of the investigation has not collected the call detail records of the accused persons and also the Advocate who was involved in the crime as per the statement of accused No.2.

¶35

He contended that since there was no fair and impartial investigation by the local police, the matter requires to be

¶36

¶37

CRL.P No. 407 of 2023

¶38

handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation. In support of his contentions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of DINUBHAI BOGHBHI SOLNKI Vs. STATE OF GUJRAT AND OTHERS reported in (2014) 4 SUPREME COURT CASES 626 .

¶39

On the other hand, Shri C.H.Hanumantharaya, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the Respondent/State submits that the police after thorough investigation have laid the charge-sheet and there is no flaw in the investigation and in the absence of any flaw in the investigation, the present petition is not maintainable. He further submits that the investigation cannot be made on the basis of a statement made in a press conference, since it has no evidentiary value as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GHANSHYAM UPADHYAY Vs. STATE OF UTTAR

¶40

PRADESH AND OTHERS reported in (2020) 16 SUPREME COURT CASES 811 . He further submits that the statement made by the then Police Commissioner in the press conference was on the basis of the alleged voluntary statement of accused No.2 and the charge-sheet material clearly discloses that there was no such statement made by accused No.2. Hence, the statement of the then Police Commissioner in the press conference has no evidentiary value so as to warrant investigation against the statement made by the then Police Commissioner.

¶41

¶42

CRL.P No. 407 of 2023

¶43

He further submits that the then Police Commissioner has made a statement in the press conference that there was no incriminating material against the Advocate who is alleged to have been involved in the crime as stated earlier.

¶44

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶45

FIR was registered in Cr.No.219/2019 on 16.10.2019, and during the course of the investigation, the statement of the petitioner, CW-78 was recorded on three occasions, i.e., 28.10.2019, 01.11.2019 and 03.11.2019. In the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., there was no whisper made by the petitioner with regard to the involvement of the Advocate or any other person in the crime. In the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. on 07.01.2020, the petitioner has not made any allegation with regard to the involvement of the Advocate. Though the then Police Commissioner had made a statement in the press conference on 17.10.2019 about the involvement of an Advocate in the crime, the petitioner, had an opportunity before the learned Magistrate in the statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., But for reasons not known has chosen to keep silent about the involvement of the Advocate, and it is only after three years from the laying of the charge-sheet, the petitioner has submitted a representation with the Government to hand over the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation stating that the investigation conducted by the

¶46

¶47

CRL.P No. 407 of 2023

¶48

local police is faulty by not conducting investigation against the Advocate who was involved in the crime.

¶49

In para-35 of the memorandum of the writ petition, the petitioner has sought for investigating the role of Prakash Budur who was arrayed as accused No.7 in the remand application but was dropped in charge sheet without any explanation. It is further contended that role of 15 persons who are the aides and members of Sudhir Angur group have not been investigated by the Police. However, the petitioner has not stated the role of the said persons in commission of the crime and also not produced any incriminating materials to conduct investigation against the said persons.

¶50

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GHANSHYAM UPADHYAY (supra) at para-6 has held as

¶51

follows:

¶52

"6. As noted, the entire basis for making the allegations as contained in the miscellaneous petition is an Article relied on by the petitioner said to have been published in the newspaper. There is no other material on record to confirm the truth or otherwise of the statement made in the newspaper. In our view this Court will have to be very circumspect while accepting such contentions based only on certain newspaper reports. This Court in a series of decisions has repeatedly held that the newspaper item without

¶53

¶54

CRL.P No. 407 of 2023

¶55

any further proof is of no evidentiary value. The said principle laid down has thereafter been taken note in several public interest litigations to reject the allegations contained in the petition supported by newspaper report.”

¶56

Merely because the then Police Commissioner has made a statement in the press conference, that cannot be the basis for conducting an investigation on the statement so made, which has no evidentiary value, as there was no further proof to substantiate the allegation that an Advocate was involved in the crime.

¶57

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dinubhai Boghbhi Solnki (supra) paras-48, 61 has held as follows:

¶58

"48. Undoubtedly, the essence of criminal justice system is to reach the truth. The underlying principle is that whilst the guilty must not escape punishment, no innocent person shall be punished unless the guilt of the suspect/accused is established in accordance with law. All suspects/accused are presumed to be innocent till their guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt in a trial conducted according to the procedure prescribed under law. Fair, unbiased and transparent investigation is a sine quo non for protecting the accused. Being dissatisfied with the manner in which the investigation was being

¶59

¶60

CRL.P No. 407 of 2023

¶61

conducted, the father of the victim filed the petition seeking an impartial investigation.

¶62

61. Ultimately, the High Court records the following conclusion:

¶63

“All the above circumstances put together indicated that the investigation was controlled from the stage of registering the FIR and only the clues provided by the accused persons themselves were investigated to close the investigation by filing Charge-sheet No. 158 of 2010 dated 10-11-2010 and further investigation had not served any purpose. Therefore, the investigation with the lapses and lacunae as also the unusual acts of omission and commission did not and could not inspire confidence. It may not be proper and advisable to further critically examine the charge-sheet already submitted by the police, as some of the accused persons are already arrested and shown as the accused persons and even charge is yet to be framed against them. The facts and averments discussed in paras 6 and 7 hereinabove also amply support the conclusion that the investigation all throughout was far from fair, impartial independent or prompt.”

¶64

This conclusion also only records the reasons which persuaded the High Court to transfer the

¶65

10 -

¶66

CRL.P No. 407 of 2023

¶67

investigation to CBI. No categorical findings are recorded about the involvement of the appellant in the crime of conspiracy. In fact, the High Court is well aware that the observations have been made only for the limited purpose of reaching an appropriate conclusion as to whether the investigation had been conducted impartially. The High Court has itself clarified as follows:

¶68

“In the facts and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, while concluding that the investigation into murder of the son of the petitioner was far from fair, independent, bona fide or prompt, this Court refrains from even remotely suggesting that the investigating agency should or should not have taken a particular line of investigation or apprehended any person, except in accordance with law. It is clarified that the observations made herein are only for the limited purpose of deciding whether further investigation was required to be handed over to CBI, and they shall not be construed as expression of an opinion on any particular aspect of the investigation carried out so far.”

¶69

After recording the aforesaid clarification, it was noticed that the investigation is being transferred to CBI to instil confidence of the general public in the investigation, keeping in mind the seriousness of the case having far-reaching implications".

¶70

11 -

¶71

CRL.P No. 407 of 2023

¶72

The petitioner having not placed any material to substantiate that the investigation conducted by the local police was not fair and proper and also there are lapses and lacuna to warrant investigation by the Central Bureau of Investigation, the relief sought for in this petition cannot be granted. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed .

¶73

Pending interlocutory applications stand dismissed as they do not survive for consideration.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

DH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Dr. Madhukar G. Angur v. the Chief Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Madhukar G. Angur v. the Chief Secretary

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 G P Mallikarjuna Vs Smt G H Sudha

Sri K v Ramesh Babu Vs S Malini

Sri G.R Jagannath Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer

S Vishwanath Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Gowtam Gopal Rao Kodikal Vs Registrar

J P Nasir Vs State of Karnataka