Sri. Vijayakrishna Vs State of Karnataka

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:31079 WP No. 18552 of 2017

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 18552 OF 2017 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. VIJAYAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O NARAYANAPPA SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE TRAFFIC -II, HASSAN CITY-573 201

¶8

SRI. HARISH AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O MARILINGEGOWDA B.H., POLICE CONSTABLE, PRESENTLY WORKING AS WRITER ALUR CIRCLE INSPECTOR OFFICE, ALUR, HASSAN DISTRICT-573 201

¶9

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI. MADHU S/O SHIVANNA AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, POLICE CONSTABLE PRESENTLY WORKING AT ARSIKERE POLICE INSPECTOR (RURAL OFFICE) HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN CITY-573 201

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. SATHISHA D.J., ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NO.1; SRI. H.C.SHIVARAMU, ADVOCATE FOR PETITIONER NOS.2 AND 3 PETITION AGAINST PETITIONER NOS.2 AND 3 IS DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 18.08.2023)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001

¶15

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:31079 WP No. 18552 of 2017

¶16

HC-KAR

¶17

KARNATAKA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION BANGALORE-560 001 BY ITS REGISTRAR

¶18

SRI. RANGEGOWDA @ THAMMANNA S/O LATE SRI THIMMEGOWDA AGE: 48 YEARS RANGANATHA ENTERPRISES BUDDHA MARG ADJACENT TO HDCC BANK VIDYANAGAR HASSAN-573201

¶19

RAJU @ HANUMEGOWDA S/O THIMMEGOWDA AGE:41 YEARS RAJU DIARY, BEHIND RAMAKRISHNA VIDYALAYA GOWRIKOPPALU HASSAN-573201

¶20

DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, BANGALORE -560 001

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. SRINIVASAKUMAR M., HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 AND 5;

¶23

SRI. V. VINAYGIRI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2; SRI. B. RAJASUBRAHMANYA BHAT, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.3;

¶24

SRI. PRAKASH M. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.4)

¶25

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.06.2016 PASSED BY THE SECOND RESPONDENT - KARNATAKA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION BANGALORE IN HRC.NO.6510/2011 AND 4235/2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND ETC.

¶26

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:31079 WP No. 18552 of 2017

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

This petition was dismissed for non-prosecution on 18.08.2023 in so far as petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are concerned. In so far as petitioner No.1, this petition was dismissed for nonprosecution on 05.02.2025. It is only petitioner No.1, who had filed application for recalling the order dismissing the petition for non-prosecution and accordingly, the petition was restored in so far as petitioner No.1 is concerned. This order is therefore applicable only to petitioner No.1 and not petitioner Nos.2 and 3.

¶32

The petitioner No.1 has challenged the order dated 14.06.2016 passed by respondent No.2 in HRC Nos.6510/2011 and 4235/2013 as well as the order dated 02.02.2017 passed by respondent No.5 in Case No.73/GC/SHRC/2016 O.B. No.01/2017.

¶33

(i) The gravamen of the case of the petitioner No.1 was that respondent No.3 had lodged a complaint against petitioner Nos.2 and 3 accusing them of assaulting him. It was alleged that the petitioner No.1 who was the Station House

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:31079 WP No. 18552 of 2017

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

Officer failed to register the complaint lodged by respondent No.3. It was also the case of the respondent No.3 that a counter complaint lodged by petitioner Nos.2 and 3 against him and others was entertained and criminal proceedings were initiated against respondent No.3 and others, which ultimately culminated in an acquittal.

¶38

(ii) The petitioners contend that respondent No.3 thereafter escalated his complaint before the respondent No.2, who instituted a one-man enquiry committee headed by Superintendent of Police, Hassan District, who submitted his report that the petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were not guilty of any misdoing. The respondent No.2 did not accept the report of the Superintendent of Police and thereafter, instituted an enquiry headed by the Inspector General of Police attached to its office. The Inspector General of Police submitted a report holding that the petitioners were guilty of violation of human rights. A copy of this report was submitted to the complainant/respondent No.3 who offered his comments. Based on the same, respondent No.2 came to the conclusion that the petitioners were guilty of violation of human rights of respondent No.3 and quantified compensation payable to the respondent No.3, his

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:31079 WP No. 18552 of 2017

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

two younger brothers and his friend. It also directed the State Government to pay Rs.44,330/- to the complainant towards medical expenses and Rs.33,500/- each to the complainant, his two younger brothers and his friend towards loss of income. Following this, the respondent No.5 passed the order dated 02.02.2017 directing to recover a sum of Rs.1,78,330/- from the salary of the petitioners and credit into the State Government account. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶42

Learned counsel for petitioner No.1 submitted that though the respondent No.3 was acquitted in the complaint lodged by the petitioner No.2, the judgment of acquittal was challenged before the Appellate Court, where he was convicted and presently an appeal is filed by respondent No.3 which is pending consideration before this Court. He submits that the respondent No.2 had based his recommendation purely on the report submitted by the Inspector General of Police. He contends that a copy of the report of Inspector General of Police was not furnished to the petitioner No.1 to offer his comments and therefore, recommendation made by the respondent No.2 was behind the back of petitioner No.1. He

¶43

6 -

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:31079 WP No. 18552 of 2017

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

further submits that the report of Inspector General of Police was based on the premise that the respondent No.3 was acquitted of the offence and his subsequent conviction was not brought to the notice of the respondent No.2. Therefore, he contends that the report of the Inspector General of Police ought to have been furnished to the petitioner No.1 and failure to do so has resulted in complete violation of principles of natural justice. In order to buttress the above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner No.1 took the Court through the impugned order passed by respondent No.2 which indicates that copy of the report of the Inspector General of Police was furnished only to the respondent No.3 and not to the petitioner No.1.

¶47

(i) The respondent No.2 filed statement of objections contending that it had received two complaints from respondent No.3 the first one on 27.10.2011 and the second on 19.09.2013. Though these complaints were taken up for consideration, it contended that, as per the complaints of the respondent No.3, respondent No.4 being the brother of the respondent No.3 got into an altercation with a person named, KEB Manja @ Car Manja regarding payment of certain

¶48

7 -

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:31079 WP No. 18552 of 2017

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

commission for sale of site. On 08.09.2011, respondent No.4 was slapped and assaulted by petitioner No.2, which resulted in the Deputy Superintendent of Police summoning the SubInspector of Police as well as petitioner No.2 to question the reason for assaulting the respondent No.4. Thereafter, they were let off with warning.

¶52

(ii) It is contended that on 06.10.2011, there was another altercation when petitioner Nos.2 and 3 were on duty during chariot car festival of Chamundeshwari Devi. Petitioner No.2 had beaten the respondent No.3 on his forehead, lower abdomen and genital region with his walkie-talkie and falsely pretended as if he was attacked by the respondent No.3. The police took the respondent No.3 and his associates to the police station, where the petitioner No.1 refused to receive their complaint and denied the request of the respondent No.3 to be taken to the hospital. Instead, the petitioner No.1 registered Crime No.285/2011 against respondent Nos.3 and 4 as well as younger brother of respondent No.3 and friend of respondent No.3 for the offences punishable under Sections 332, 153, 427 read with Section 34 of IPC on the allegation that they had obstructed petitioner Nos.2 and 3 in carrying out their duty.

¶53

8 -

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC:31079 WP No. 18552 of 2017

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

(iii) It is contended that after the respondent No.3 and his associates were released on bail, they were admitted to the hospital and respondent No.3 had to undergo a surgery for removal of blood clot and was discharged from hospital on 24.10.2011. The respondent No.3 then lodged a complaint with the Superintendent of Police, which was forwarded to the Circle Inspector of Police, Hassan, for further steps. However, no action was taken.

¶57

(iv) It is contended that the respondent No.2 after receiving the complaint of the respondent No.3 forwarded a copy to the Superintendent of Police, Hassan, for an enquiry into the matter and to submit a report. The Superintendent of Police submitted a report stating that there was no proper enquiry conducted in the matter before arresting respondent No.3 and the petitioner No.1 did not verify the allegations made by the respondent Nos.3 and 4 and the counter allegations by the police. A copy of the report was sent to the respondent No.3 for his comments. The respondent No.2 therefore, felt from the facts that the case was one of police excesses and inhuman behaviour. Therefore, respondent No.2 exercising power under Section 16 of the Protection of Human Rights Act,

¶58

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:31079 WP No. 18552 of 2017

¶59

HC-KAR

¶60

1993 issued notices on 27.10.2014 to the petitioners calling for their comments. The petitioners filed joint reply which was received on 02.12.2014, where they claimed that allegations made by the respondent No.3 were false and far from truth. The respondent No.2 considered all the materials and was of the view that the material placed was not sufficient to reach a conclusion and therefore, vide order dated 27.12.2014, a fresh independent enquiry was ordered at the hands of the Inspector General of Police, KSHRC. The Inspector General of Police submitted a report dated 03.12.2015 and confirmed the violation of human rights by the petitioners. The respondent No.3 who was served with a copy of the report submitted his comments and based on the same, respondent No.2 came to the conclusion that the investigation conducted by the Inspector General of Police showed excesses committed by the petitioners in the garb of discharging their official duties. Therefore, the respondent No.2 concluded that there was violation of human rights of the respondent No.3 and determined the compensation payable to the respondent No.3 at a sum of Rs.33,500/- towards loss of earnings and Rs.44,330/- being the medical expenses. The respondent No.2

¶61

10 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:31079 WP No. 18552 of 2017

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

also determined the compensation of Rs.33,500/- each payable to the two younger brothers of respondent No.3 and the friend of respondent No.3 towards loss of earnings and it recommended that the compensation payable be deducted from the salary of the petitioners.

¶65

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 reiterated the above contentions and contended that the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 is just and proper and based on sufficient evidence.

¶66

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that respondent No.2 while considering the case of the petitioners had considered the objections of petitioners to the report submitted by the Superintendent of Police, Hassan in the first instance and therefore, the grievance of the petitioners were taken into consideration by the respondent No.2 before passing the impugned order. He further submits that the petitioners have not challenged the compensation awarded to the two younger brothers of respondent No.3 and friend of respondent No.3 and therefore, this writ petition only against the respondent No.3 is half-hearted and report cannot be trashed

¶67

11 -

¶68

NC: 2025:KHC:31079 WP No. 18552 of 2017

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

and two younger brothers of respondent No.3 and the friend of respondent No.3 who are beneficiaries of certain compensation would be condemned unheard if the petition is allowed. In support of this contention, he relied upon the order of this Court in W.P.No.13818/2017.

¶71

I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner No.1 as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 and the learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶72

The respondent No.2 had acted on two complaints lodged by the respondent No.3 who alleged excesses committed by the petitioners. The Superintendent of Police, Hassan was initially directed to conduct an enquiry and submit his report which was furnished to the petitioners, who offered their comments and after considering the same, respondent No.2 felt it necessary to get the issue inquired at the hands of Inspector General of Police, KSHRC. The report of the Inspector General of Police was received and a copy of the same was furnished to the respondent No.3 and not to the petitioner No.1. The respondent No.2 has thereafter proceeded to

¶73

12 -

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:31079 WP No. 18552 of 2017

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

determine the compensation payable to the respondent No.3, his two brothers and his friend without even hearing the petitioner No.1. Therefore, without going into the question whether the impugned order passed by the respondent No.2 was just and proper and also whether there was sufficient material on record to justify such finding, this petition deserves to be disposed off on the solitary ground that respondent No.2 failed to furnish copy of the report submitted by Inspector General of Police to the petitioner No.1 to explain his stand. After all, the respondent No.2 is also bound to comply with the principles of natural justice before holding that the petitioner No.1 is guilty of violation of human rights of respondent No.3 and his brothers and friend.

¶77

Hence, the following order is passed;

¶78

ORDER

¶79

(i) The impugned recommendation made by respondent No.2 followed by the order passed by the respondent No.5 directing deducting of the compensation from out of the salary of the petitioner No.1 is set aside.

¶80

13 -

¶81

NC: 2025:KHC:31079 WP No. 18552 of 2017

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

(ii) The respondent No.2 is directed to furnish a copy of the report of the Inspector General of Police, KSHRC, to the petitioner No.1 and thereafter take a decision in accordance with law.

¶84

(iii) In order to expedite this process, respondent No.2 is directed to furnish a report within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the petitioner No.1 shall furnish his explanation, if any, within a period of two weeks thereafter.

¶85