Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 361 (KAR)

RAHUL N. BALDOTA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

2010-03-19

SUBHASH B.ADI

body2010
ORDER W.P. No. 66321 of 2009 is directed against the police notice dated 14-11-2009 produced at Annexure-F, wherein Sub-Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Rural Police Station, Bellary, had called upon the petitioner to appear before him on 18-11-2009 at 11.00 a.m. for giving statement in connection with the complaint said to have been filed by one B.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, Managing Director of M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited, Bellary. 2. Petitioner's case is that, he is one of the Directors of M/s. M.S.P.L. Mining Company and the company has received several awards for its scientific and systematic mining and also towards contribution in protecting the environment. Respondents 6 and 7 are known for illegal encroachment in the forest area of the Bellary District and also other areas of the lessees and are harassing and humiliating the petitioner by using their high political power and the Government Officials. Since the petitioner is protesting against the illegal activities, at the instance of respondents 6 and 7, the police notice impugned in this writ petition has been issued to him at the instance of respondents 6 and 7, with intention to harass the petitioner. Petitioner alleges that he does not have faith in the investigation being conducted by the said police as they are acting at the direction of respondent 7-company. It is also alleged that the respondent 7 -company belongs to sitting Ministers in Karnataka Government. Petitioner has produced several paper cutting to allege that the police notice impugned is the outcome of the political influence with an intention to harass the petitioner. It is stated that respondent 6 is a close associate of the political leaders and Ministers in the State Cabinet and the Managing Director of the respondent 7-company. 3. This Court by order dated 23-11-2009 issued emergent notice to respondents 6 and 7 and also stayed the further proceedings in pursuance of Annexure-E and thereby the proceedings on the file of the Sub-Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Rural Police Station, Bellary, in pursuance of Annexure-F is concerned, has been stayed. 4. Before I consider the impugned notice Annexure-F, it is appropriate to refer to the complaint stated to have been filed by respondent 6, original records are placed before the Court by the learned Additional Government Advocate. 4. Before I consider the impugned notice Annexure-F, it is appropriate to refer to the complaint stated to have been filed by respondent 6, original records are placed before the Court by the learned Additional Government Advocate. The complaint is dated 12-11-2009 which reads as under: "Place: Bellary Date: 12-11-2009 At: 10.00 p.m. From B.V. Sreenivasa Reddy, Managing Director, M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company Private Limited, Bellary To The Superintendent of Police, Bellary District, Bellary The under signed is the Managing Director of M/s. Obulapuram Mining Company engaged in mining of the iron ore and a permanent resident of Avambhavi Bellary. Since several years the mining operations are looked after by me personally by visiting the mines day in and out regularly and the mines are situated at Obulapuram in Hirehal Mandal of Anantapur District. In the recent past the mine owner Mr. Modi of Bellary and Mr. Rahul Beldota of M/s. MSPL of Hospet doing similar mine business have developed enmity with us and directly and indirectly causing troubles to our business and also grinding axe against the directors of my company more particularly against me and with the said object the said persons with the help of the hired persons conspiring to cause serious criminal acts. On this day at 9.21 p.m. a unanimous phone call informed me stating that he is known person to me and stated that on this day between 11.00 a.m. and 12.00 p.m. hours in the office of Mr. Modi, at Allipuram, some new and unknown persons held meeting to eliminate me and it was discussed at the office that the said new and unknown persons have been sent by Mr. Rahul Beldota of M/s. MSPL of Hospet. It is further disclosed that the said unknown person are contract killers and my photo with cash for killing me was handed over to the said new persons. Hence this information to investigate and nab the criminals and the said ,conspirators at the earliest and I further seek that proper security is provided to my residence and to me and my family members. Thanking you Yours faithfully Sd/- (B.B. Sreenivasa Reddy) M.D. ,OMCPL 5. Hence this information to investigate and nab the criminals and the said ,conspirators at the earliest and I further seek that proper security is provided to my residence and to me and my family members. Thanking you Yours faithfully Sd/- (B.B. Sreenivasa Reddy) M.D. ,OMCPL 5. Complaint discloses that, the complainant is the Managing Director of respondent 7-company and is looking after the same personally for several years and the petitioner is doing similar mining business and there is enmity between the complainant and the petitioner i.e., the Director of M/s. MSPL and one Mr. Modi and they are directly or indirectly causing trouble to the business of respondent 7-company. Further there is conspiracy of committing criminal acts against the respondent 7-company more particularly with respondent 6. It is alleged that about 9.21 p.m. on 12-11-2009 complainant received unanimous phone call informing him that, some unknown persons held a meeting in the office of Mr. Modi at Allipuram to eliminate him and it is alleged that the said unknown persons are sent by the petitioner. It is further alleged that the unknown persons are the contract killers and they have been provided with the photo of the complainant and cash and alleged that matter be investigated to nab the criminals and also the conspirators. 6. On 12-11-2009 at about 10.45 p.m. complaint was registered in D.P. No. 20 of 2009. Thereafter, the Sub-Inspector of Police of. the said police station has issued the notice impugned in this writ petition dated 14-11-2009 calling upon him to appear before him on 18-11-2009 at about 11.00 a.m. to give statement. 7. In this case, very strange procedure has been adopted by the police officer. Contents of the complaint discloses threat to the life of respondent 6 and if it discloses a cognizable office, the first and foremost duty of the Police Officer was to register the complaint and to take appropriate action. However, the reason behind not registering case and not forwarding FIR to the Court and on later date i.e., nearly after two days, issuing a notice to call upon the petitioner to give statement, appears to be strange. 8. However, the reason behind not registering case and not forwarding FIR to the Court and on later date i.e., nearly after two days, issuing a notice to call upon the petitioner to give statement, appears to be strange. 8. Section 154 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 requires that, the Police Officer incharge of the police station to register the complaint of the cognizable offence, once he receives the information or a complaint, and forward the FIR to the jurisdictional Court, and take up the investigation. There is no choice for the police officer to receive or not receive the information of cognizable offence or complaint pending without registering the same. 9. The affidavit filed by the Police Officer does not disclose as to why complaint is not registered and why notice is issued. Police notice would be issued only after registering the complaint and during the course of investigation, under Section 160 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the purpose of investigation, if the police officer finds that the attendance of a witness is necessary for the purposes of investigation of the crime, he may issue notice to such witness to attend the police station for giving his statement. However, in this case, nothing has been done after receiving the complaint, except issuing notice, it is not known as to why and under what provision of law the said notice is issued, it creates doubt as to the bona ticks of the Police Officer incharge. No acceptable explanation is given by the respondent-Police Officer for not registering the crime not investigating the matter, and issuing only notice that too after two days of the complaint. When the Police Officer is required under law to register the complaint and send the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate, there was no reason not to do so. The said police officer de hors to the procedure and law, has chosen not to register the complaint. If this discretion is conferred on the Police Officer, what would happen to the ordinary citizen, who depend on the police for prosecution from the criminal acts. 10. All citizens in the country are equal before law and have equal rights. No discrimination can be made on the basis of status of the persons involved in the case. If this discretion is conferred on the Police Officer, what would happen to the ordinary citizen, who depend on the police for prosecution from the criminal acts. 10. All citizens in the country are equal before law and have equal rights. No discrimination can be made on the basis of status of the persons involved in the case. Police is meant to maintain law and order, to ensure the safety and security to the people and their properties. They are, required to prevent the offence that is likely to take place, bring the offender to book. Even in this case, the complaint discloses that there is threat to the life of the complainant, the delay in not taking action by the concerned police had resulted in commission of crime, who would be responsible? This inaction is nothing but dereliction of duty and responsibility. 11. Police are backbone for the civilised society, it must remember that, no civilised society can exist, if rule of law is not followed. Police carry greater responsibility in enforcing the rule of law for the existence of the orderly society. Police are not the choosers of the persons to take action, law does not create discrimination amongst the people, they have to be treated equally. 12. Sri B.V. Acharya after arguing for some time, submitted that the way in which the complaint is taken, police notice is issued, and the background under which the complaint is filed, and the political influence behind the complaint and the police officer acting at the behest of the political leaders, who are very powerful and they hold cabinet birth in the State Government, it is not possible to have a fair investigation at the hands of the jurisdictional police or the District Police. He submitted that, much water has flown under bridge to filing the complaint. He apprehended that the petitioner may not get fair investigation and requests for investigation by COD Police. 13. In this regard, the matter was adjourned to today to find out as to whether the investigation could be entrusted to some other agency. 14. A memo has been filed by the learned Additional Government Advocate stating that the case would be registered and investigation would be assigned to some other officer. However, Mr. M.M. Swami, Counsel seriously opposed the investigation of the matter by an officer within the district of Bellary. 14. A memo has been filed by the learned Additional Government Advocate stating that the case would be registered and investigation would be assigned to some other officer. However, Mr. M.M. Swami, Counsel seriously opposed the investigation of the matter by an officer within the district of Bellary. He submits that in the light of the allegations and counter allegations in this proceedings and in the light of the rivalry in the business and politics, suggested for investigation by the officer of the choice of the DGP and investigation be made under his supervision and he submits that if the truth has to come out, investigation should be done by impartial person. 15. No doubt, accused cannot be given the choice of choosing the police officer nor the Court can direct a particular agency to investigate the case, it is a prerogative of the jurisdictional police officer to investigate the matter, unless extreme case of bias is made out. 16. However, considering the memo filed by the Government and also considering the nature of allegations between the parties and the background of the case, I feel it appropriate to request the DGP to entrust the investigation to the police officer of his choice for conducting fair investigation in the matter from both the angle not only form the petitioner, who is an alleged accused, but also from the complainant. 17. There is no doubt that preliminary enquiry could be made before registration of FIR. However, such preliminary enquiry can be made only after registering the complaint to find out the correctness of the complaint, and not by issuing the police notice without registering the complaint. But in this case, no such enquiry is made, in turn, the accused named in the complaint was issued with the notice that too after two days of filing of the complaint. 18. In view of the above circumstances, I find it appropriate to direct the concerned police namely, Sub-Inspector of Police, Law and Order, Bellary Rural Police Station to register the case for the offence alleged in the complaint and forward FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate and thereafter refer the matter to the D.G.P. to entrust the investigation to the Police Officer of his choice. The investigation shall be under the supervision of D.G.P. Accordingly, W.P. No. 66321 of2009 stands disposed of: (a) Respondent-Police Sub-Inspector (Law and Order), Bellary Rural Police is directed to register the complaint received by him and send the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate. (b) After registering the case and sending the FIR to the jurisdictional Magistrate, he shall forward the Investigation to the Director General of Police. (c) The Director General of Police is directed to entrust the investigation by Police Officer of his choice. (d) The investigation shall be under the supervision of the D.G.P. (e) On completion of investigation, the concerned Police Officer to file the final report before the jurisdictional Magistrate. In view of the disposal of the main matter, connected W.P. No. 66333 of 2009 also stands disposed of. Consequently, Misc. W. No. 62438 of 2009 for impleading stands disposed of. The 5th respondent-Sub-Inspector of Police, Bellary Rural Police Station, has filed an affidavit explaining the lapses in not registering the case immediately, and it is stated that, it was not intentional but bona fide and in good faith complaint was not registered. Though I do not find that the explanation justifies his inaction, however, the said matter is left to the concerned higher Police Officer to take note of it. Without going into other aspects, affidavit is accepted and the same is placed on record.