Dismissed

Smt. Jessy Robert v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Jul 2024WP/15622/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking quashing of a 2005 abated chargesheet and direction to CBI for reinvestigation into a deceased woman's suicide. The Court found the petitioners had ulterior motives stemming from prior conflicts and property disputes, making the belated challenge unjustified.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be paid by each petitioner to the Karnataka State Advocates Clerks Association.

Smt. Jessy Robert Vs State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:29578 WP No. 15622 of 2016

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 15622 OF 2016 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. JESSY ROBERT, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, W/O SRI. ROBERT HENRY, R/AT 300/1, CMR LAYOUT, HENNURUBUNDE, BENGALURU-560 084.

¶9

MR. AJAY JOSEPH CHACKO, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, S/O MR. JOSEPH CHACKO, & LATE MRS. JESSY JOSEPH CHACKO R/AT No.545, CROWN PLAZA, OPPO LITTLES SISTERS OF THE POOR, 2^ND CROSS, HENNUR ROAD, KALYANNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 043.

¶10

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. KRISHNA S.VYAS, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER No.1; SRI. MANOHAR.P., ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER No.2)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA, CHIKKAJALA POLICE,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:29578 WP No. 15622 of 2016

¶17

BENGALURU-562 157.

¶18

THE DG AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. STATE OF KARNATAKA.

¶19

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

¶20

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (CBI) No.36, BELLARY ROAD, GANGANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 032.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI.B.A.BELLIYAPPA, SP-I ALONG WITH SMT. N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R-1 TO R-4; SMT. ANITHA KRISHNA MURTHY FOR SRI.P.PRASANNA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R-5)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE FILING OF CHARGE SHEET BY CHICKAJALA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU BEARING C.C.No.52/2006 DATED:26.05.205 AGAINST A-1 (DECEASED JESSY JOSEPH CHACKO) MARKED AND ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-B AND ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER AND THEREBY DIRECT THE R-1 TO R-4 FOR FORWARDING THE CASE TO R-5 (BY CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION) FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION MONITORED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT.

¶24

¶25

NC: 2024:KHC:29578 WP No. 15622 of 2016

¶26

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.07.2024, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶28

CAV ORDER

¶29

This petition is filed seeking quashing of the charge-

¶30

sheet filed by the Chikkajala Police Station in C.C.No.52/2006 on 26.05.2005 that has been laid against the deceased–Mrs. Jessy Joseph Chacko, and also a mandamus to direct respondent Nos.1 to 4 for forwarding the case to the Central Bureau of Investigation for further investigation.

¶31

This petition was presented before this Court on 18.03.2016 by the 1^st petitioner–Mrs. Jessy Robert (referred to as “ the original petitioner ”) who did not, in her petition, state in what manner she was related to the deceased — also named Jessy, but with the surname Joseph Chacko.

¶32

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:29578 WP No. 15622 of 2016

¶33

The petitioner, however, contends that there are serious irregularities in the investigation conducted by the police in relation to the death of Mrs. Jessy Joseph Chacko who is alleged to have shot herself with a revolver on 28.05.2005 and ultimately succumbed to her injuries on 30.05.2005 at Manipal Hospital. The petitioner alleges that there was foul play in the investigation and alleges that the investigation was deliberately manipulated to protect Mrs. Jessy Joseph Chacko’s husband–Mr. Joseph Chacko from being prosecuted. Allegations are made regarding the character of her husband and insinuations are made that he was responsible for his wife’s death. It is also alleged that the brother of Mrs. Jessy Joseph Chacko had also colluded with her husband–Mr. Joseph Chacko for his personal gain.

¶34

The police after investigation laid an abated chargesheet dated 26.11.2005 which is sought to be challenged by way of this writ petition filed eleven years thereafter, on 18.03.2016.

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:29578 WP No. 15622 of 2016

¶36

On 17.10.2022, Mr. Ajay Joseph Chacko, aged 24 years — the son of the deceased Mrs. Jessy Joseph Chacko against whom the abated charge-sheet had been laid — filed an application to implead him as the 2^nd petitioner. This application was allowed on 17.10.2022 and the amendment was also carried out on 12.03.2024. Mr. Ajay Joseph Chacko in this petition also seeks to support the contentions raised by the original petitioner and makes allegations against his father to contend that he was responsible for the death of his mother.

¶37

In my view, it would be unnecessary to look into the allegations made by the petitioners in light of the submissions made by Mr. B. A. Belliyappa–learned State Public Prosecutor regarding the motives of both the petitioners in making the allegations against Mr. Joseph Chacko. Mr. Belliyappa submitted that the allegations in the petition ought not to be considered on merits in view of the hidden motives of the petitioner and also their antecedents in relation to the husband of the deceased.

¶38

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:29578 WP No. 15622 of 2016

¶39

Mr. Belliyappa further pointed out that the original petitioner–Mrs. Jessy Robert had lodged a complaint making allegations against Mr. Joseph Chacko–the husband of the deceased Mrs. Jessy Joseph Chacko on 30.08.2012, in respect of which a case was registered in Crime No.79/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 144, 323, 427, 379, 506(B), 447 r/w Section 149 of the IPC. In the complaint, the petitioner contended that she was the care-taker of Athena Township and that Mr. Joseph Chacko had forcibly evicted her from the clubhouse she was staying at along with her 11 month old baby on 24.08.2012, and had also assaulted her and taken away her belongings in the process.

¶40

He submitted that the police after investigation submitted a B-Report on 09.07.2013, wherein it is recorded that the original petitioner had failed to produce any documents despite issuance of several notices in that

¶41

regard and the allegations that she was evicted or assaulted was not true. He also averred that in this B-

¶42

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:29578 WP No. 15622 of 2016

¶43

Report, it has been recorded that the property in which the petitioner–Mrs. Jessy Robert claimed to be in possession was the property of said Mr. Joseph Chacko and it is thus clear that there was prior history of animosity and litigation between them. He therefore submitted that entertaining this writ petition in respect of a death which occurred in 2005 and, that too, on the basis of a petition filed eleven years thereafter in 2016, by a person who has an axe to grind against Mr. Joseph Chacko, would be wholly unjustified.

¶44

Mr. Belliyappa further pointed out that the 2^nd petitioner had instituted a suit seeking a declaration against his father–Mr. Joseph Chacko and his brother in O.S.No.719/2022 on 25.03.2022 on the ground that he was entitled to 1/3^rd share in certain properties and also for declaration that the release deed dated 02.08.2021 executed by him in favour of his father had been obtained

¶45

by fraud and was thus not binding on him. He submitted that Mr. Ajay Joseph Chacko had instituted another suit in

¶46

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:29578 WP No. 15622 of 2016

¶47

O.S.No.1045/2022 on 27.04.2022 seeking a declaration that he was entitled to 1/3^rd share in respect of three properties and also for putting him in possession of said properties.

¶48

He also contended that after the suits were filed on 25.03.2022 and 27.04.2022, Mr. Ajay Joseph Chacko has filed an application for impleading himself as the 2^nd petitioner and is seeking to support the allegations made by the original petitioner against his father ( against whom he had filed the two aforementioned suits ). He submitted that when the incident occurred in the year 2005, Mr. Ajay Joseph Chacko was a minor aged just about seven years and, therefore, he would have absolutely had no knowledge about the occurrence of any of the events.

¶49

Learned Special Public Prosecutor submits that in light of the fact that both the petitioners are inimical towards Mr. Joseph Chacko and have ganged-up in order

¶50

to settle their private scores against him, this writ petition filed at their instance — wherein imputations were made

¶51

9 - NC: 2024:KHC:29578 WP No. 15622 of 2016

¶52

about the involvement of Mr. Joseph Chacko in the death of his wife — ought not to be entertained. He also contended that Mrs. Jessy Joseph Chacko passed away in the year 2005 and to demand an investigation seventeen years thereafter would only be a futile exercise especially after it had been concluded by the investigation officer basis the evidence secured that Mrs. Jessy Joseph Chacko had committed suicide.

¶53

A perusal of the documents produced by the learned SPP do confirm the fact that the original petitioner herein i.e., Mrs. Jessy Robert had lodged a complaint against Mr. Joseph Chacko and his henchmen for illegal trespass, assault, theft and illegal eviction from her residence. The police after investigation have indeed filed a B-Report with a finding that the property claimed by Mrs. Jessy Robert was the property of Mr. Joseph Chacko. This filing of a complaint as well as of the B-Report has been suppressed in the present petition.

¶54

10 - NC: 2024:KHC:29578 WP No. 15622 of 2016

¶55

It is also not stated as to what manner Mrs. Jessy Robert is interested in the incident which occurred in the year 2005 or what special knowledge she had in respect of the incident that took place in the year 2005 when Mrs. Jessy Joseph Chacko took her life.

¶56

In my view, in light of this previous history of conflict and indisputable animosity that exists between the original petitioner and Mr. Joseph Chacko, it would not be appropriate to entertain a petition at her behest in respect of an incident which took place eleven years before filing of the same. The fact that the petition has been filed three years after the filing of B-Report on the complaint of the petitioner, by itself, indicates that the original petitioner has filed the petition only to settle her private scores with Mr. Joseph Chacko.

¶57

Similarly, it is to be noticed here that when Mrs. Jessy Joseph Chacko passed away in the year 2005, her son–the 2^nd petitioner herein was hardly seven years old. As already noticed above, the documents produced by Mr.

¶58

11 -

¶59

NC: 2024:KHC:29578 WP No. 15622 of 2016

¶60

Belliyappa indicate that the 2^nd petitioner has filed two suits for partition on 25.03.2022 (in O.S.No.719/2022) and on 27.04.2022 (in O.S.No.1045/2022). It is to be also noticed here that in both these suits, the 2^nd petitioner in respect of his mother’s death has merely stated as follows:

¶61

In O.S.No.719/2022:

¶62

“5. The plaintiffs submits that after purchasing the schedule properties plaintiff mother expired during the year 2005 leaving behind the plaintiffs and defendant no.1 and 2 as her legal hair since the plaintiffs are minors the Katha of the property transferred in the name of the defendant no.1. The copy of the Death Certificate, RTC's herewith produced and marked As Annexure No. 11 ΤΟ 15.”

¶63

In O.S.No.1045/2022:

¶64

“6. The plaintiffs submits that after purchasing the schedule properties plaintiff mother expired during the 'year 2005 leaving behind the plaintiff and defendant no.1 and 2 as her legal hairs since plaintiff are minor during the year 2005 the defendant got Pawthi Katha of the schedule property in his name. The copy of the Death Certificate, MR and RTC's reflecting Pawthi, katha changed in the name of the defendant is herewith produced and marked As Annexure No. 6 ΤΟ 11”.

¶65

12 -

¶66

NC: 2024:KHC:29578 WP No. 15622 of 2016

¶67

As could be seen from the above, in the suit that was instituted by the 2^nd petitioner–Mr. Ajay Joseph Chacko, there is not even an allegation made about the unnatural death of his mother or regarding the involvement of his father thereof.

¶68

It may also be pertinent to notice that in O.S.No.719/2022, Mr. Ajay Joseph Chacko admits that he had executed a release deed in favor of his father on 02.08.2021 in respect of certain properties and was seeking a declaration that the same had been obtained by fraud and was thus not binding on him.

¶69

In the application for impleading filed by Mr. Ajay Joseph Chacko, he has suppressed the fact that he had instituted two suits against his father, against whom allegations are made by the original petitioner, and the 2^nd petitioner supports the same in this petition. This would clearly indicate that Mr. Ajay Joseph Chacko is also attempting to settle his scores with his father, obviously in the background of the fact that he has filed a suit seeking

¶70

13 -

¶71

NC: 2024:KHC:29578 WP No. 15622 of 2016

¶72

a declaration that the release deed executed by him was obtained by fraud and that he was entitled for 1/3^rd share in the properties of his mother.

¶73

In light of the fact that the documents produced by

¶74

the learned SPP indicate that the petitioners possess ulterior motives and are seeking to settle their scores against Joseph Chacko, it would definitely not be appropriate to entertain this petition for investigation into the laying of a charge-sheet against Mrs. Jessy Joseph Chacko, who passed away way back in the year 2005 by taking her own life.

¶75

It is to be noticed here that the filing of an abated charge-sheet in the year 2005 has not been challenged by any of the family members and none of the family members have made any allegations of a mala fide investigation. It would therefore be a travesty of justice if an investigation is ordered seventeen years after the death of Mrs. Jessy Joseph Chacko at the instance of the original petitioner — who has a grouse against her

¶76

14 -

¶77

NC: 2024:KHC:29578 WP No. 15622 of 2016

¶78

husband; and at the instance of her son — who is fighting a legal battle in respect of the release deed that had been executed in favour of his father.

¶79

Before parting with the matter, a disturbing factor in the manner of conduct adopted by the counsel for Mr. Ajay Joseph Chacko (the 2^nd petitioner) would have to be noted and deprecated.

¶80

The counsel appearing for Mrs. Jessy Robert was heard in full, and the counsel for Mr. Ajay Joseph Chacko was also heard on 03.07.2024 and the Court was also inclined to dictate the order on the very same day. However, at that stage, Mr. Krishna Vyas–learned counsel for the original petitioner made a fervent request that he be granted a day’s time to have a look at the records and make further submissions. This submission was hesitantly accepted and a day’s time was granted to him.

¶81

However, on the following day i.e., on 04.07.2024,

¶82

Mr. Krishna Vyas (who argued the matter in full on

¶83

15 -

¶84

NC: 2024:KHC:29578 WP No. 15622 of 2016

¶85

03.07.2024) did not appear. Another counsel appeared before this Court and stated that he had filed a vakalath to appear for the 2^nd petitioner, along with Mr. Manohar P. who had already argued the matter. He then requested for a further period of two weeks to argue the matter. This tactic was evidently employed solely to protract the matter and prevent this Court from disposing of the matter. This approach adopted by the 2^nd petitioner and his counsel must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

¶86

After a matter has been heard, parties cannot change their counsel without the leave of the Court. A counsel who had already argued the matter cannot accede to the request of the party to give his ‘no objection’ for another counsel to appear along with him. He has a duty to the Court to act fairly and cannot dance to the whims of the party and encourage improper and unprofessional practices.

¶87

Despite the above, this Court informed the new counsel that it was open for him to address his arguments,

¶88

16 - NC: 2024:KHC:29578 WP No. 15622 of 2016

¶89

notwithstanding the fact that he ought not to have entered appearance without the leave of the Court when the matter was already heard in full. However, he insisted only on seeking time and did not avail the opportunity to make any submissions.

¶90

The learned counsel appearing for the 2^nd petitioner (who had given the NOC and had also argued the matter on 03.07.2024), however, proceeded to state that he has further arguments to advance, and he was accordingly heard by this Court in full.

¶91

These observations are made with a deep sense of regret and hopefully, this kind of conduct will not be adopted by the counsels in the future.

¶92

In my view, since these averments regarding the interest of the petitioners in the present subject matter have been deliberately suppressed, it would be appropriate to impose costs while dismissing this writ petition. Consequently, this writ petition is dismissed with

¶93

17 -

¶94

NC: 2024:KHC:29578 WP No. 15622 of 2016

¶95

costs of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand) payable by each of the petitioners to the Karnataka State

¶96

Advocates Clerks Association within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶97

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶98

GSR

¶99

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Smt. Jessy Robert v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Jessy Robert 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr M Kaladhar Vs the Deputy Commissioner

V Ravikumar Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr.Siddhartha Kumar Vs Mrs. Neha Mehta

S Aditya Ravi Raj Vs State of Karnataka

Icici Lombard Gen Ins Co. Ltd. Vs State Government Karnataka

Smt. Radhamma Vs Sri Ananda Reddy