IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.18115 OF 2011 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
A.D.NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O T.DODE GOWDA, INSKPECTOR OF POLICE, POLICE CONTROL ROOM, COMMISSIONE OF POLOCE, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
... PETITIONER (By Sri. D.L.JAGADISH, SENIOR COUNSEL A/W SRI. MANJUNATHA V.RAYAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND 1. SRI. G. SRINIVAS MURTHY AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O GURUMURTHY, RESIDENT OF KARIKIKOPPA, E.J. MANE POST, SAGAR TALUK, SHIMOGA DIST.
2. THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION, M.S.BUILDINGS, BANGALORE-01 3. THE SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, STATE OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-01.
4. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.
... RESPONDENTS (By Sri. S.V.PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI.NITIN PRASAD, ADVOCATE FOR R-2 SRI.Y.D.HARSHA, AGA FOR R-2 AND R-3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS, FOR EXAMINATION & QUASH THE ORDER DT.24.10.09, VIDE ANN-M, PASSED BY THE R2 IN H.R.C.228/08.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri.D.L.Jagadish, learned senior Counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.S.V.Prakash, learned counsel for respondent No.1; Sri.Y.D.Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3; Sri.Nithin Prasad, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this writ petition, petitioner, inter alia, seeks writ of certiorari for quashment of order dated 24.10.2009 passed by respondent No.2.
3. Facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition briefly stated are that respondent No.1 was a suspect in Crime No.55/2007 which was registered against him in Uruva police station, Mangalore for offences under Section 465, 468, 471 and 420 of Indian Penal Code. The petitioner and other staff picked up respondent No.1 from Bangalore and after interrogation of respondent No.1 in the presence of the complainant, respondent No.1 was let off along with one Krishnappa. Respondent No.1 was also arrested in another Crime No.122/2007 for offences under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code against him in Uruva Police Station, Mangalore. However, respondent No.1 was enlarged on bail by the Magistrate. After about two months, respondent No.1 filed complaint before the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission. The Human Rights Commission took cognizance of the complaint and after conducting an enquiry, interlia held that respondent No.1 was illegally detained for a period of from 7.11.2007 to 13.11.2007 and directed payment of compensation of Rs.50,000/-. In the aforesaid factual background, the petitioner has approached this Court.
4. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission before recommendations which had been impugned in this petition had served notice on the petitioner. The aforesaid statement has been disputed by learned counsel for Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, however, on the other hand, submitted that in pursuance of the recommendations made by the Commission, amount of compensation has been made to him.
5. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
6. In compliance of the orders passed by this Court, learned counsel for Karnataka State Human Rights Commission has produced the records. On perusal of the records, it transpires that the notice sent to the petitioner was not served on the petitioner as the petitioner’s signature does not appear on the acknowledgment. Therefore, in the fact situation of the case, I deem it appropriate to direct the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission to serve a copy of the recommendations made by it to the petitioner by registered post. On receipt of the recommendations, the petitioner shall be heard and thereafter Karnataka State Human Rights Commission shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after hearing the petitioner. Needless to state that till the orders are being passed by the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, respondent No.1 need not refund the amount of compensation received by him.
7. With the aforesaid directions, the petition is disposed of.
sd/- JUDGE ln.