Allowed

Sri. M. H. Uma Shankar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Aug 2024WP/6797/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition challenging an order by the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission. The Commission had ordered compensation and a disciplinary inquiry against petitioners for alleged harassment. The Court quashed the order due to the complainant's withdrawal of the complaint and lack of evidence.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order dated 08.12.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission and subsequently dismissed the complaint filed by the 4th respondent.

Sri. M. H. Uma Shankar Vs the State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:33270 WP No. 6797 of 2023

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 6797 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

SRI. M. H. UMA SHANKAR S/O HANUMANTHAPPA M K, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, WORKING AS: DY.S.P, HOSKOTE SUB DIVISION BANGALORE DISTRICT R/AT VILLA NO.07 G R SUN VILLAS 1^ST CROSS, 3^RD STAGE NEAR BUDIGERE CROSS BOMMENAHALLI MANDUR BANGALORE-560 049.

¶7

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶8

SRI H.M. RANGASWAMY S/O LATE MALLAIAH, AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS WORKING AS: CPI NANDAGUDI CIRCLE, BANGALORE, R/AT HALENAHALLI, TUMKUR-572 201.

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. NISHIT KUMAR SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE

¶14

¶15

NC: 2024:KHC:33270 WP No. 6797 of 2023

¶16

KARNATAKA STATE NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶17

KARNATAKA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, 4^TH FLOOR, 5^TH PHASE, M S BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001 REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶18

SRI DHANDAPPA S/O NALLAPPA MAJOR R.AT TAVAREKERE VILLAGE AND POST, NANDAGUDI HOBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK BANGALORE-560 029.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1 & R2; SRI. GOPALAKRISHNA SOODI, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SRI. J.T. GIREESHA, ADVOCATE FOR R4)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER ANNEXURE-A DATED 08.12.2022 IN H.R.C.NO.2223/10/32/2022 (B-2) AND OTHER ANNEXURE-B DATED 14.02.2023 PASSED BY THE R3 AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The petitioners challenge the order passed by the 3rd respondent under the exercise of powers conferred by Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. The impugned order directs the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000 as compensation for allegedly harassing and torturing the son of the

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:33270 WP No. 6797 of 2023

¶28

4th respondent. The order further directs the initiation of a disciplinary inquiry against the petitioners, with the release of the said compensation being subject to the outcome of the inquiry.

¶29

The petitioners have produced a copy of the representation submitted by respondent No. 4, the complainant, to the 3rd respondent, withdrawing the complaint. In the said representation, respondent No. 4 explicitly states that the petitioners did not assault, harass, or torture his son. Similarly, the alleged victim has also made a statement before the 3rd respondent, affirming that he was not subjected to harassment or torture by the petitioners during the course of interrogation. Despite the withdrawal of the complaint and the statements by both the complainant and the alleged victim, the 3rd respondent proceeded to pass the impugned order.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

The allegations against the petitioners pertain to the alleged harassment and torture of the 4th respondent’s son during the course of interrogation, without following the due process of law. The petitioners, however, have denied these allegations and submitted a representation to that effect. The alleged victim has also stated that he was not subjected to any harassment or torture by the petitioners. Despite these submissions, respondent No. 3 proceeded to pass the impugned order. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent evidence to substantiate the allegations against the Petitioners, the impugned order is not legally sustainable.

¶32

¶33

NC: 2024:KHC:33270 WP No. 6797 of 2023

¶34

5. The writ petition is allowed.

¶35

The impugned order dated 8.12.2023 and impugned order dated 14.02.2023 passed by the respondent No.3 at Annexures-A and B are hereby quashed, and subsequently the complaint filed by the respondent No.4 is hereby dismissed.

¶36

Sd/-

¶37

(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶38

Sri. M. H. Uma Shankar v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. M. H. Uma Shankar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Renuka Bai Vs State of Karnataka

Alrm Nagappan Vs the Government of Karnataka

Smt. Shashikala N Vs Icici Bank Ltd.

Smt Aruna a L Vs the Authorized Officer

T K Vasudevan Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank

Manappuram Finance Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka