Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 945 (KAR)

M. Ramakrishna v. State of Karnataka

2013-08-20

A.S.BOPANNA

body2013
Judgment : 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking that respondent No.1 be directed to handover investigation of all the cases registered against respondent No.3 to respondent No.2-CBI for investigation. The petitioner is also seeking for issue of appropriate direction to direct respondent No.1 to execute the NBWs issued by the various Courts against respondent No.3 forthwith. 2. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner along with one Sri Nagendra Kumar had constituted a Trust under the name and style of "Onco's Krishna Educational Trust" on 28.07.2000. The said Trust was registered for educational purposes and was allotted land for setting up a Cancer Hospital and Research Centre. Respondent No.3 who is a former MLA is stated to have approached the petitioner to include him as one of the Trustees of the said trust. In that regard, the petitioner and respondent No.3 have certain disputes and as such, the petitioner is stated to have lodged certain complaints and in that regard, criminal proceedings have also been initiated. But the grievance of the petitioner is that despite there being NBW issued by the jurisdictional Court, the same is not being executed since respondent No.3 who is an influential person has been evading and the police authorities are not acting in accordance with law. It is in that circumstance, the petitioner is before this Court seeking that the investigation be handed over to the CBI and for further directions. 3. Respondents No. 1 and 2 have filed their objection statement. Respondent No.1 while refuting the contention put forth by the petitioner has referred to the details of the proceedings that are pending before the appropriate Courts and the fact that the charge sheet has been filed and the proceedings in C.C.No.11948/2008 is in progress. Yet another case in C.C.No.11672/2009 is also referred to. In that view, it is contended that the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed and therefore it is for the jurisdictional Court to proceed further in the matter. Insofar as the specific allegation that the NBW has not been served on respondent No.3, reference is made to the same in C.C.No.11948/2008 wherein respondent No.3 has sought recall of the NBW and therefore with appropriate shara it has been returned to the Court below. 4. Insofar as the specific allegation that the NBW has not been served on respondent No.3, reference is made to the same in C.C.No.11948/2008 wherein respondent No.3 has sought recall of the NBW and therefore with appropriate shara it has been returned to the Court below. 4. Respondent No.2 through their objection statement have indicated that there is no implication of general importance in the instant case and therefore respondent No.2 which is already over burdened with several cases would not be in a position to take up the case. With reference to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is contended that it is not a case where the direction is to be issued. 5. In the light of the rival contentions, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the petition papers. 6. From the pleadings, as borne out from the writ petition, it is seen that essentially the dispute is with regard to certain transaction entered into between the petitioner and respondent No.3. It is in that regard, the petitioner is said to have made a complaint and when from the objection statement filed on behalf of the respondents it is seen that the investigation has been completed and charge sheet has been filed and it is also pointed out that respondent No.3 has also filed a counter complaint, in my opinion, the case cannot be considered as one involving public interest or of general importance so as to direct respondent No.2 to take over the investigation at this stage. 7. That apart, insofar as the investigation conducted by the jurisdictional police, no flaw has been indicated so as to claim that the investigation has to be entrusted to CBI. The petitioner no doubt has certain grievance with regard to non-execution of the NBW which has been issued by the jurisdictional Court. In this regard, reference is made to Annexure-A wherein certain details of the same has been obtained under the Right to Information Act and it is alleged in the petition that the NBW though issued has not been served. In that regard, respondent No.1 through their objection statement have clearly indicated that the said NBW has been recalled by the jurisdictional Court and therefore, even to the said extent, the petitioner cannot have any grievance. In that regard, respondent No.1 through their objection statement have clearly indicated that the said NBW has been recalled by the jurisdictional Court and therefore, even to the said extent, the petitioner cannot have any grievance. If at all subsequent thereto, any NBWs have been issued and if there are specific instances, certainly it would be open for the petitioner to approach the higher authorities to indicate any dereliction of duty by the Police Officers. In that regard, the prayer as made in the petition cannot be granted. The petition stands disposed of accordingly.