Allowed

Niranjan R N v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Jun 2023WP/8278/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a writ petition invoking powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to quash an endorsement dated 30.11.2022 and an order dated 28.12.2022 relating to PCR No. 18/2022. The Court held that the police action was contrary to the Court's earlier direction to investigate.

What did the court decide?

The endorsement dated 30.11.2022 was quashed, the order dated 28.12.2022 was set aside, and a direction was issued to the police to investigate and file a final report.

Niranjan R N Vs State of Karnataka — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:20610 WP No. 8278 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 8278 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

MR. NIRANJAN R N S/O LATE NIJAGUNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, RESIDING AT RAMADIHALLI, DANDINASHIVARA HOBLI, TURUVEKERE TQ, TUMKURU DIST - 572 101.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARBATTI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DANDINASHIVARA POLICE, REP. BY STATE PUBIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001

¶13

(BY SRI. MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP)

¶14

…RESPONDENT

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 30.11.2022 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE FOUND AT ANNX-B AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC TURUVEKERE DTD 28.12.2022 IN PCR NO.18/2022 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT DANDINASHIVARA POLICE TO INVESTIGATE THE MATTER AND TO FILE THE FINAL REPORT AS PER THE

¶16

¶17

NC: 2023:KHC:20610 WP No. 8278 of 2023

¶18

ORIGINAL ORDER DTD 09.09.2022 FOUND AT ANNX-C AND ETC.,

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Heard Sri.Venkatesh S. Arbatti, learned counsel

¶22

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Mahesh Shetty, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the respondent.

¶23

The petitioner seeks the following relief:

¶24

”i. Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing the endorsement dated, 30/11 /2022 issued by the Respondent Police found at ANNEXURE - 'B'.

¶25

ii. Set aside the order passed by the Hon'ble Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere, dated: 28/12/2022, in PCR No. 18/2022 AND Direct the Respondent Dandinashivara Police to investigate the matter and to file the final report as per the original order dated: 09/09/2022 found at ANNEXURE -'C' .

¶26

iii. Or To grant any such other relief/s or order or direction as this Hon'ble Court deems fit under

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC:20610 WP No. 8278 of 2023

¶28

the facts and circumstances of the case and thus render justice and equity. ”

¶29

The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶30

the issue in the lis stands covered by the judgment rendered by this Court in W.P.No.755/2022 disposed on 13.04.2022 , wherein this Court has held as follows:

¶31

"3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the

¶32

present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

¶33

The petitioner on certain allegations registers a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. before the learned 9th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore, seeking investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The complaint was presented in the open Court, the office was directed to register the case as PCR and the same was registered as PCR No.13149/2021.

¶34

4. The learned Magistrate heard the counsel

¶35

for the complainant, perused the records and

¶36

4 - NC: 2023:KHC:20610 WP No. 8278 of 2023

¶37

ordered investigation to be conducted by the jurisdictional police – Jnanabharathi Police

¶38

Station and to submit a final report in the matter by his order dated 18.10.2021. On the communication of the said complaint to the jurisdictional Police, an endorsement was issued by the respondent - Jnanabharathi Police Station that the jurisdiction lies with Byadarahalli Police and therefore, sought to transfer the complaint from Jnanabharathi Police Station, who was directed to investigate, to Byadarahalli Police Station. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the petitioner and the complaint was returned to the petitioner for want of jurisdiction to investigate the offence, as according to the Police, the jurisdiction lied with Byadarahalli Police. It is this action that is called in question in the subject petition.

¶39

5. Learned Counsel Sri. Trivikram S.,

¶40

appearing for the petitioner would contend that the action of the respondent-Police in refusing to investigate the matter and file a final report as

¶41

5 - NC: 2023:KHC:20610 WP No. 8278 of 2023

¶42

directed by the Court would amount to sitting over the order of a Court and therefore, is illegal. Once the order of the learned Magistrate was set in motion, the same cannot be recalled even by the learned Magistrate let alone returning of the complaint by the Police.

¶43

6. On the other hand, the learned High Court Government Pleader would admit the legal position and submit that the matter is to be investigated by the respondent - police.

¶44

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both parties and perused the material on record.

¶45

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The complaint was presented before the Judicial Officer – the learned Magistrate, who on the complaint directs investigation to be conducted by the police of a particular police station. The police refusing to conduct investigation and returning the complaint would on the face of it amount to

¶46

¶47

NC: 2023:KHC:20610 WP No. 8278 of 2023

¶48

overriding the orders of the Court, which jurisdiction

¶49

the police do not posses.

¶50

9. Once the Court accepts the complaint and directs particular police to investigate and declining to investigate such cases, cannot arise. The police ought to have investigated and filed its final report in the matter. Returning of the complaint after the same having been accepted and investigation directed, that too by the police, runs counter to Section 173 of the Cr.P.C.

¶51

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The Writ Petition is allowed.

¶54

(ii) The endorsement dated 26.08.2021, issued by the respondent – Police and the order dated 18.10.2021 passed by the IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, stand quashed.

¶55

(iii) A direction is issued to the respondentpolice to investigate and file a final report in the matter as directed by the IX Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru, on 14.07.2021."

¶56

7 - NC: 2023:KHC:20610 WP No. 8278 of 2023

¶57

The learned HCGP on verification would admit the

¶58

same.

¶59

Therefore, in the light of the issue standing covered, the petition deserves to be allowed and for the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶60

ORDER

¶61

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶62

(ii) The endorsement dated 30.11.2022 issued by the respondent Police in PCR No.18/2022 on the file of the Civil Judge and J.M.F.C., at Turuvekere stands quashed and the order passed by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Turuvekere dated 28.12.2022 in P.C.R.No.18/2022 is set aside.

¶63

Sd/JUDGE

¶64

KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Niranjan R N v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Niranjan R N 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K. Lakshman Bhat Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Kareem Shariff Vs the State of Karnataka

G. Shankar Vs Mrs. P. S. Jayanthi

V.L. Soumya Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.N.R.v. Vittal Vs the State of Karnataka

Ashok Kheny Vs State of Karnataka