Disposed

Nirmala Bharatha Charitable Trust (R) v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC13 Mar 2024WP/6771/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A charitable trust complained that a Circle Inspector manhandled its Secretary at land granted to it; the complaint was not registered as an FIR for about 45 days while a counter-complaint against the Trust was registered immediately. The High Court observed that the complaint disclosed cognizable offences and that Lalita Kumari mandates prompt FIR registration. Since the crime was ultimately registered (Sections 354, 506, 323 IPC), the petition was disposed of with rights left open.

What did the court decide?

FIR came to be registered during pendency; petition closed/disposed with parties' rights left open.

Nirmala Bharatha Charitable Trust (R) Vs the State of… — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:10395 WP No. 6771 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 6771 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

NIRMALA BHARATHA CHARITABLE TRUST ®, (A CHARITABLE TRUST REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INDIAN TRUST ACT, 1882), O/AT D.NO.13-2-185, P.M. RAO ROAD, MANGALURU - 575 001. ALSO AT SRI. GOWRI, 2-10-777, BHAJANA MANDIR ROAD, BEJAI MANGALURU - 575 004, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. H. SHANTHI BHUSHAN, *ADVOCATE FOR SRI. AJAY PRABHU M., ADVOCATE)

¶10

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH HOME DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶13

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MANGALURU CITY, POLICE TRAINING SCHOOL PANDESHWAR, KARNATAKA - 575 001.

¶14

*Corrected vide chamber order dated 20.03.2024

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:10395 WP No. 6771 of 2024

¶17

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, DAKSHINA KANANDA, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 001.

¶18

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 001.

¶19

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, ULLAL, MANGALURU, D.K. DISTRICT - 575 020.

¶20

BALAKRISHNA H.N., FATHER NAME UNKNOWN, AGED MAJOR, THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, ULLAL, MANGALURU,

¶21

D.K. DISTRICT - 575 020.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. K. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, AG A/W SRI. V.G. BHANUPRAKASH, AAG A/W SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 TO R5; SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R2, 3 AND 4 TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTIONS AGAINST THE R6 BY INITIATING DISCIPLINARY ACTION BY CONSIDERING THE REPRESENTATION GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DATED:26.01.24 TO R2, 3 AND 4 RESPECTIVELY IN A TIME BOUND MANNER AND PASS NECESSARY ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW (PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A,B AND C AND ETC.

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:10395 WP No. 6771 of 2024

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY

¶27

HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

ORDER

¶29

The petitioner is before this Court, seeking the following

¶30

prayers:

¶31

"I. Issue a Writ in nature of Mandamus or any other writ directing the Respondents no 2,3 and 4 to take immediate action against the Respondent no 6 by initiating disciplinary action by considering the representation given by the Petitioner dated 26-01-2024 to Respondent no 2,3 and 4 respectively in a time bound manner and pass necessary orders in accordance with law (Produced at Annexure A, B and C)

¶32

II. Issue a Writ Mandamus directing the Respondents not to interfere with the peaceful possession of the Petitioner's land except following the due process of law

¶33

III. Issue any other writ or order or direction and grant such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble court may deem fit in the facts and circumstance of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

¶34

Heard Sri. H. Shanthi Bhushan, learned *Counsel

¶35

appearing for the petitioner, Sri. K. Shashi Kiran Shetty, learned Advocate General appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 and Sri. Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar for respondent No.6 have perused the material on record.

¶36

*Corrected vide chamber order dated 20.03.2024

¶37

¶38

NC: 2024:KHC:10395 WP No. 6771 of 2024

¶39

The petitioner is the Nirmala Bharatha Charitable Trust (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Trust’ for short). The Trust is registered on 01.10.2003. An application is made before the concerned for the grant of land. On 15.03.2023, the payment that was stipulated for such grant was also complied with by the petitioner-Trust. The Mahazar is drawn and the petitioner is said to have given possession of the land. Notwithstanding the aforesaid action, the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner passed certain orders directing the petitioner to maintain status-quo with regard to the land that was granted until further orders.

¶40

Aggrieved by the said action of the Tahsildar and the Assistant Commissioner, the petitioner knocks at the doors of this Court in W.P.No.2591/2024. This Court on 25.01.2024, passes the following order:

¶41

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records.

¶42

Petitioner a registered Trust moved application for grant of land. Respondent No.2Deputy Commissioner has received application and placed the proposal before respondent No.3 for grant, placing reliance on recommendation of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Respondent No.1 by order dated 02.08.2022 by exercising powers conferred under Rule 27 of Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969,

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:10395 WP No. 6771 of 2024

¶45

granted 2 acres of land and pursuant to grant, the petitioner/Trust has paid a sum of Rs.43,50,715/-. Consequent to grant, possession is handed over to the petitioner/Trust and mutations are also effected in the revenue records.

¶46

The short point that needs consideration at the hands of this Court is as to whether the respondent No.5-Tahsildar could have unilaterally cancelled the grant made by respondent No.1.

¶47

This Court also needs to examine as to whether grant could have been cancelled unilaterally without notifying and affording opportunity to the petitioner. For the reasons stated supra, impugned order passed by the respondent No.5 canceling the grant made in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 21.01.2024 as per Annexure-A and consequent order passed by the respondent No.4-Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure-B are hereby stayed until further orders.

¶48

Learned HCGP is directed to accept notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶49

Liberty is reserved to the respondents to move vacating application.

¶50

Ten days’ time is granted to remove all office objections."

¶51

(Emphasis supplied)

¶52

Pursuant to the afore-quoted order and on the

¶53

strength of the same, the petitioner wanted to put up a temporary fence to protect the property. It transpires that respondent No.6 visits the site and misbehaves with a lady, the Secretary of the Trust. She immediately registers a complaint on 26.01.2024 against the Circle Inspector – Respondent No.6. The complaint reads as follows:

¶54

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:10395 WP No. 6771 of 2024

¶55

"From,

¶56

Dr. Latha Rai, Secretary, Nirmala Bharatha Charitable Trust, Mangaluru

¶57

To, Commissioner of Police, Mangaluru City, Mangalore.

¶58

Sub: Complaint against Circle Inspector, Ullala - Balakrishna HN.

¶59

Sir,

¶60

I am the Secretary of Nirmala Bharatha Charitable Trust, Dakshina Kannada. The Trust was granted about 2 acres of land in survey no. 149/* in Konaje village, Ullala Taluka by the government in terms of the order dated 02-08-2022 and possession was delivered to the Trust subsequently.

¶61

On 21-01-2024 when we went to put up fencing in the site, certain employees of the Mangaluru University started obstructing the work. Later, police officials namely Nagaraj (SI - Kanaje) and other constables came to the site and enquired about the same. We showed all the documents pertaining to the site. Thereafter, Tahsildar, Ullala and Assistant Commissioner, Mangaluru Sub-Division came to the site and orally stated that our grant is wrong and that the land needs to be surveyed again. The Tahsildar and AC in highhanded manner orally asked us to stop all work on the site but we insisted them to give a written order as oral instructions are illegal. Later, the same evening the Tahsildar passed order asking us to stop all work on site. Later, on 22- 01-2024, AC passed illegal order setting aside the mahazar and possession in respect of the site.

¶62

The Trust immediately filed writ petition before the Honourable High Court in WP No. 2591/2024 challenging the said orders of the Tahsildar and Assistant Commissioner. The Honourable High Court in terms of

¶63

7 - NC: 2024:KHC:10395 WP No. 6771 of 2024

¶64

the order dated 25-01-2024 stayed the illegal orders passed by Tahsildar and AC.

¶65

Pursuant to the interim order passed by the High Court, today i.e. on 26-01-2024, at around 8 am the members of the Trust namely Dr. CN Shankar Rao, Prof. KM Balakrishna, Jagadish Kapumale along with me and workers went to the site to put up fencing on the boundary as per the sketch prepared at the time of grant.

¶66

At around 9.30 AM while we were carrying out fencing work, a personnel from the Intelligence Unit of Police namely Santhosh came to the site and enquired about the work. We showed him the High Court order which he forwarded to ACP and SI in front of us on whatsapp. Later at around 10 A.M. Nagaraj (SI) came to the site and asked us to stop all work immediately. We again showed him the High Court order and upon seeing the same he went away.

¶67

Later at about 11 AM, Circle Inspector Balakrishna HN came to the site and started abusing and shouting at everyone present in the site. We calmly informed him about the High Court order, which he was reluctant to acknowledge and even demeaned the High Court stating that High Court stay does not work here and that it is his area and only what he says is the law. He further said that he has higher authority order to stop all work at site. Being amused by his unruly behaviour we informed him that this would amount to contempt of High Court's order and started to record the incident to which he reacted violently by hitting my hand andpulled my hand indecently and also touched me inappropriately and manhandling me.He pulled away my phone and tried to break the phone by hitting it on the floor. Immediately Abhishek Bhandary came to my rescue and took away the phone and he started questioning the Circle Officer enquiring about his interest in the matter. Circle Inspector hit Abhishek Bhandary and shoved and pushed him trying to grab his phone while he was recording the incident and also threatened to thrash him shouting in a loud voice

¶68

¶69

NC: 2024:KHC:10395 WP No. 6771 of 2024

¶70

saying that he is the supreme and no court matters in front of his authority. He threatened everyone telling that he would arrest everyone and asked the lower officials to put us in the police van. When we did not budge to his illegal demands, he decided to leave the site.

¶71

I fail to understand the personal interest of the police department and particularly the circle officer in this civil matter. The dispute in respect of the site whichis purely civil in nature between the revenue authorities and the Trust. The police has acted in a highhanded manner totally unprovoked and out of self interest which is amusing to say the least. I and Abhishek Bhandary have been insulted, abused physically and mentally and manhandled by the Circle Inspector Balakrishna. I wish to know why the Police Department and particularly the Circle Inspector is interested in a civil dispute without there being any police complaint to the best of my knowledge and who is the higher authority who has instructed him to stop our work in the site.

¶72

We request you to take immediate action against the unruly officer by initiating disciplinary enquiry and suspending the said police officer - Balakrishna for his gross misconduct and also illegal act. We also request you to initiate criminal action against the erring officer under provisions of IPC and other relevant laws for abusing power and manhandling us.

¶73

We have the videos pertaining to the above incident which will be made available when sought for by the concerned authority.

¶74

We expect your prompt action.

¶75

Thanking you"

¶76

(Emphasis added)

¶77

After the registration of the complaint on 26.01.2024, no crime is registered. It is the defence that for about two weeks,

¶78

¶79

NC: 2024:KHC:10395 WP No. 6771 of 2024

¶80

preliminary enquiry is conducted and later, an endorsement is issued by the jurisdictional police that no such incident had ever happened.

¶81

A development that took place between the incident

¶82

and the date of the endorsement requires to be noticed. On the very same day i.e., on 26.01.2024, the Vice Chancellor of the University which property abuts the subject property registers a complaint before the very same Police Station. The crime is immediately registered even before the ink on the complaint could dry. It is a crime in Crime No.26/2024 against the Petitioner. Both the incidents happen on the same day i.e., 26.01.2024. Against the Secretary who represents the petitioner, crime is immediately registered, but the complaint registered by the petitioner is not. After about 25 days of the registration of the crime, the subject writ petition is preferred. It comes up before the Court on 05.03.2024. Noticing the fact,

¶83

even as on 05.03.2024, a complaint registered on 26.01.2024, is not fructified into a first information report, this Court passes the following order:

¶84

"The petitioner is a Charitable Trust. Certain orders of grant of land was unilaterally cancelled against the Trust,

¶85

10 -

¶86

NC: 2024:KHC:10395 WP No. 6771 of 2024

¶87

this is called in question by the petitioner in W.P.No.2591/2024. This Court grants an interim order of stay on 25.01.2024 by the following order:

¶88

"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the records.

¶89

Petitioner a registered Trust moved application for grant of land. Respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner has received application and placed the proposal before respondent No.3 for grant, placing reliance on recommendation of respondent Nos.4 and 5. Respondent No.1 by order dated 02.08.2022 by exercising powers conferred under Rule 27 of Karnataka Land Grant Rules, 1969, granted 2 acres of land and pursuant to grant, the petitioner/Trust has paid a sum of Rs.43,50,715/-. Consequent to grant, possession is handed over to the petitioner/Trust and mutations are also effected in the revenue records.

¶90

The short point that needs consideration at the hands of this Court is as to whether the respondent No.5-Tahsildar could have unilaterally cancelled the grant made by respondent No.1.

¶91

This Court also needs to examine as to whether grant could have been cancelled unilaterally without notifying and affording opportunity to the petitioner. For the reasons stated supra, impugned order passed by the respondent No.5 canceling the grant made in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 21.01.2024 as per Annexure-A and consequent order passed by the respondent No.4-Assistant Commissioner as per Annexure-B are hereby stayed until further orders.

¶92

Learned HCGP is directed to accept notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5.

¶93

Liberty is reserved to the respondents to move vacating application.

¶94

Ten days’ time is granted to remove all office objections."

¶95

On the strength of the interim order, it appears that the Trustees of the Trust sought to put-up a fence over the property, at which point in time the

¶96

11 -

¶97

NC: 2024:KHC:10395 WP No. 6771 of 2024

¶98

respondent No.6 appears at the spot and the allegation is that he has inappropriately touched the lady, who was at the spot, and manhandled her. The detailed narration of the incident of hitting and pulling the hand of the lady is narrated in the complaint. The complaint is registered on 26.01.2024, till date there is no FIR is registered against the respondent No.6 who is alleged of certain acts which would prima-facie become cognizable offences. Merely because he is the Circle Inspector, he cannot be said that he is above the law. Therefore, the respondent-State to explain as to why the FIR is not registered on a complaint which clearly narrates offences that are cognizable in nature against the Circle Inspector-respondent No.6.

¶99

List the matter on 06.03.2024 at 02.30p.m."

¶100

The matter was directed to be listed on 06.03.2024, it gets listed on 07.03.2024. The crime was yet to be registered. On 07.03.2024, this Court on the submission of the Additional Government Advocate passed the following order:

¶101

"Learned AGA submits that the order dated 05.03.2024 would be complied by taking necessary steps.

¶102

List the matter in the 'fresh matters list' on 12.03.2024."

¶103

The matter was directed to be listed on 12.03.2024. On the night of the previous day i.e., 11.03.2024, just before the listing of the matter, the crime is registered at 10.00 p.m. as the matter was to be listed on 12.03.2024, before the Court.

¶104

12 - NC: 2024:KHC:10395 WP No. 6771 of 2024

¶105

The offences punishable are Sections 354, 506 and 323 of the IPC. When the matter is listed today, the 6^th respondent is represented by learned counsel Sri.Shivaprasad Shantanagoudar. Any amount of persuasion by him did not yield any result.

¶106

What would unmistakably emerge from what is observed hereinabove is that, against the lady, the Secretary of the petitioner-Trust, the crime is immediately registered. When it came to, the complaint against the 6^th respondent, the Circle Inspector, it has taken close to 45 days to register the crime. The narration in the complaint is in detail. They all form the ingredients of cognizable offences, as the allegation is that the 6^th respondent has manhandled the lady. Therefore, prima facie, it amounted to a crime which ought to have been taken note of by the Station House Officer and registered without any loss of time. The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of

¶107

LALITA KUMARI V. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH

¶108

AND OTHERS¹ is completely ignored by the action of not registering the crime. Since the crime is now registered, I deem

¶109

1 (2014) 2 SCC 1

¶110

13 -

¶111

NC: 2024:KHC:10395 WP No. 6771 of 2024

¶112

it appropriate to close the petition, by observing that without any justifiable reason, police power cannot be unleashed on any citizen, and definitely not against a woman.

¶113

The rights of the respective parties, pursuant to the registration of the crime, are left open.

¶114

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed.

¶115

Sd/JUDGE

¶116

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19 CT:SNN

Nirmala Bharatha Charitable Trust (R) v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nirmala Bharatha Charitable Trust (R) 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Annappa Nayak Vs State Bank of India

S. Nagaraju Vs the Executive Officer

Mr Abdul Azeez Vs the Station House Officer

Jashed Pasha Vs Karnataka State Board of Wakf

Shri K Narasimha Bahat Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Anupama B S Vs Union of India