IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.7896/2014(GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
1.SMT B N MEENA W/O B N PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT J M ROAD, MUDIGERE, MUDIGERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 132 2.SMT B N PREMA W/O SATISH SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, T.P.S.QUARTERS, BALAGADI KOPPA, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT-577 126 REPRESENTED POWER OF ATTORNEY SRI SATISH SHETTY S/O KUPPASHETTY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, MUTLUPADY VILLAGE, MUNIYAL POST OFFICE, KARKALA TALUK, UDUPI DISTRICT-574 108 ..PETITIONERS (BY SRI RAMESH CHANDRA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1.STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001 2.DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 3. MUDIGERE POLICE STATION, MUDIGERE, CHICKMAGALUR, CHICKMAGALUR DISTRICT ..RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VASANTH V FERNANDES, HCGP) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO:
DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO INVESTIGATE THE DEATH OF SUDHA ON 11.02.2013 AT SHIMOGA EITHER BY COD OR BY APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING `B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners are the sisters of the deceased Sudha who are before this court for writ of mandamus directing respondents to investigate the death of Sudha on 11.02.2013 at Shivamogga either by COD or appropriate authority in the interest of justice.
2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are from `Bunts’ community hailing from Dakshina Kannada. They are children of Narayana Rai and Seethamma Rai. Narayana Rai and Seethamma Rai had three daughters by name Meena, Prema and Sudha. Sudha was working in Mudigere. She was hale and healthy aged about 40 years during 2013. One Ravi Kumar through Hanumanthappa introduced himself as a man of her community and introduced him as a Bachelor and thereby induced Sudha to marry him. Accordingly marriage was performed on 21.06.2006. At the time of marriage petitioners mother has given 200 grams gold ornaments and a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as demanded by said Ravi Kumar and deceased Sudha and Ravi Kumar were not at all leading a happy married life. She was tortured for dowry by Ravi Kumar from the beginning. The petitioners mother out of fear had given Rs.3,00,000/- additional amount and he was demanding money time and again from deceased Sudha. It is also contended that the deceased Sudha and Ravi Kumar were residing at Mudigere till her death. It is informed by Sudha to the petitioners on 09.02.2013 that she was not well because of the medication given by said Ravi Kumar in a remote village. She was actually vomiting and immediately she intended to get admitted to hospital for treatment. Ravi Kumar offered himself to get better medication at Shivamogga. Thereafter there was no communication. Till 11.02.2013 she was not at all admitted to hospital though Sudha and Ravi Kumar left to Shivamogga for getting admitted. It appears he has taken Sudha to Shivanakollalur near Santhebennur instead of getting admitted to hospital.
Her whereabouts were not at all known to anybody. Even on 11.02.2013, though the doctors at Heart Foundation, Shivamogga advised to get her admitted to Nanjappa hospital, Shivamogga immediately, the said Ravi Kumar did not bring and admitted to hospital nearly for two hours after discharge from Heart Foundation even though 1 Km away from the hospital. When she was brought to Nanjappa hospital and without giving treatment she died. The hospital authorities appears to have informed the police that she died of Asthma without even giving her treatment. Under this suspicious circumstance she died on 11.02.2013.
3. It is further case of the petitioners that deceased Sudha died at hospital, Shivamogga and petitioners had noticed froth in mouth of deceased when she was brought to hospital. There was manipulation of the post mortem report also. Petitioners have given statement before the Jayanagar police station complaining that the death was not natural death and also given address of Ravi Kumar was that of Santhebennur. The police at Jayanagar, Shivamogga has transferred it to Santhebennur Police station and they approached and got the post mortem. The said Ravi Kumar deliberately gave the address as Santhebennur only to manipulate the death though he never resided at Santhebennur. The jurisdictional police, Mudigere where deceased was residing questioned the antecedents of Ravi Kumar and Hanumanthappa but did not investigate properly though repeated requests were made by the petitioners. Meanwhile act of cheating that was unearthed by the petitioners is firstly Ravi Kumar was not a Bachelor and not a man of their community. Ravi Kumar was married to Rajeswari and was having two children from their wedlock and he belongs to Bhovi SC Community. There was no divorce of the first marriage. The report of Head Mistress New Pioneer’s High School, Bangalore-72 dated 10.01.2014 indicating date of birth of two children and the caste and the mother’s name and family tree produced at Annexures- C and D respectively. Ravi Kumar is not son of Narayana Shetty, even the ration card produced is falsely claimed as son of B.L.Seethamma instead of son-in-law. The entire act of Ravi Kumar- accused commencing from the marriage of Sudha till her death is suspicious and nothing but cheating. Investigation conducted by Mudigere Police, Chikkamagaluru is incomplete and they deliberately shielded the accused and there was no proper investigation etc. Therefore they are before this court for the relief sought for.
4. When the matter came up before this court on 25.06.2019 this court passed a detailed order as under:
“The records produced by the learned Government Advocate through 3rd respondent - Sri.K.T.Ramesh, Sub- Inspector, Mudigere Police Station clearly depicts that there is a complaint dated 27.03.2013 made by 1st petitioner – Smt.B.N.Meena about the allegations against one Sri.Ravi Kumar with regard to torture, assault, dowry harassment and killing his wife for dowry. The deceased Sudha is sister of the petitioners. Though the complaint filed by the 1st petitioner is exists in the records produced by the Sub- Inspector but unfortunately the police have not registered the case at all. When a specific query was made to Sri.K.T.Ramesh that why he has not registered the compliant, he submits that he was not working at Mudigere Police Station at that relevant point of time and one Sri.Anant Padmanabhan was working as Sub- Inspector at that point of time. The said submission is placed on record.
Learned Government Advocate shall get instructions from Sri.Anant Padmanabhan, the then Sub-Inspector of Mudigere wherever he is working as on today as to why he has not registered the case on the complaint made by the 1st petitioner and he shall file an affidavit in that regard before this Court on the next date of hearing.
Sri.Anant Padmanabhan, the then Sub-Inspector and Sri.K.T.Ramesh, present Sub-Inspector of Mudegere Police Station are directed to present before the Court on next date of hearing.
Call on 02.07.2019.
A copy of this order shall be furnished to the learned Government Advocate forthwith to take necessary steps.
5. In pursuance of the order passed by this Court one Sri Anantha Padmanabha K.V., Sub-Inspector, Udupi Town, filed affidavit and stated that when investigation was in progress petitioners insisted Santhebennur police that the investigation should be carried out by Mudigere Police Station by their representation dated 15.02.2013 as late Smt.Sudha and her husband Ravi Kumar were residing within the jurisdiction of Mudigere Police Station and the file was then transferred to Mudigere Police Station which was received by him on 01.04.2013. When investigation was continued by the jurisdictional police, they found that there was another representation on 27.03.2013 filed by petitioners when the file was pending before the Santhebennur Police Station alleging murder of Sudha by her husband and misuse of movable and immovable properties by him. UDR No.3/2013 was renumbered as UDR No.7/2013 in our police station.
The treatment history of the ailments suffered by late Smt.Sudha from Nanjappa hospital, Shivamogga and AJ Hospital, Mangaluru was made available in the file.
6. It is further stated that the concerned Sub- Inspector started conducting enquiry and further investigation from 05.04.2013 with regard to the cause of death and during course of investigation, interrogated neighbours, friends and colleagues as to the relationship of Sudha with her husband Ravi Kumar and that he received good report about their conduct and character and was informed that they had a good, happy and a healthy relationship with no misunderstandings. There were no complaints by them against each other to neighbours and friends, nor were any complaints lodged in the Mudigere Police Station against each other. It is further stated on the complaint made by the petitioners concerned initiated UDR No.3/2013. Any further complaint by the same complainant against the same accused subsequent to the registration of the case is prohibited under the Criminal Procedure Code because an investigation in this regard would have already started and further complaint against the accused will amount to improvement on the facts mentioned in the original complaint and will be prohibited under Section 162 of Cr.P.C. The complaint dated 27.03.2013 is in the form of more information. No FIR can be registered on this complaint and entered in the Station House Diary again, as it would in effect be a 2nd FIR and the same is not in conformity with the scheme of Cr.P.C. Therefore it is not possible to register the case.
7. State counsel also filed objections and stated investigation officer collected the post mortem report and final post mortem report. Paragraph 10 of the statement of objections read as under:
“10. It is humbly submitted that the investigation officer has collected the postmortem report. The final opinion of the postmortem is as under:
“On perusal of Post mortem report, Histopathological examination report and Chemical analysis report, I am of the opinion that the cause of death is due to Acute Exacerbation of Chronic Astama”.
8. Further contended that investigation done by the concerned investigation officer is in accordance with law. As per the statement of witnesses referred supra deceased Sudha was suffering from asthma and having breathing problem and taken treatment at Shivamogga etc., sought for dismissal of the petition.
9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
10. Sri Ramesh Chandra for petitioners reiterates the grounds urged in the petition and has contended that the documents produced by the petitioners clearly depicts that said Ravi Kumar husband of deceased Sudha induced Sudha to marry him only for the purpose of securing benefit and administered unknown substance only to cause death. There was no proper care taken by Ravi Kumar and jurisdictional police have not properly investigated. He further contended that when the records produced before this court on 25.06.2019, there is a complaint dated 27.03.2013 made by the first petitioner making allegations against Ravi Kumar with reference to torture, assault, dowry harassment and killing his wife for dowry. Complaint made against Ravi Kumar is cognizable offence and it is the duty of the police to register the case and proceed in accordance with law. Same has not been done.
11. He would further contend in view of the provisions of Section 154 of Cr.P.C even the investigation when complaint is filed it is duty of the officer concerned to register the case and proceed in accordance with law. The police authorities have not discharged their obligations to register the case. Therefore he sought to allow the writ petition.
12. In support of his contentions learned counsel for petitioners relied upon the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivshankar Singh Vs State of Bihar and another reported in (2012) 1 SCC 130 to the effect that under the provisions of Section 154 there is no prohibition to register multiple FIR in respect of same case but with different versions. Even police can entertain some facts therefore he sought to allow the petition. He would further rely on the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohindro Vs State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 2001 SC 2113.
13. Per contra, learned HCGP for the State sought to justify the action of the police not considering the complaint dated 27.03.2013 made by the first petitioner and stated that further investigation regarding cause of death also made by interrogating friends and colleagues and absolutely no case is made out by the petitioners to further investigate in the matter as the jurisdictional police have already stated that investigation is under progress and absolutely no reasons to register the second case and no case is made out by the petitioners to register second FIR which is impermissible in law. Therefore he sought for dismissing the writ petition.
14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is undisputed fact that deceased Sudha, sister of present petitioners, married one Ravi Kumar who claimed to be `Bunts’ community and thereafter they came to know that Ravi Kumar had already two children and not from the very community of the petitioners and there was dowry demand made by Ravi Kumar from the beginning and he used to harass deceased Sudha for dowry, tortured, assaulted and virtually he has killed their sister. It is also not disputed by jurisdictional authorities, complaint made by the petitioners registered as UDR No.3/3013 subsequently renumbered as UDR No.7/2013. The material on record clearly depicts that during the pendency of the proceedings, the first petitioner lodged complaint on 27.03.2013 making serious allegations against Ravi Kumar, dowry harassment, tortured and killed his wife. When the second complaint is made during the course of investigation, averments made in the complaint is cognizable offence, it is the duty of the investigation officer to register the case as contemplated under Section 154 of Cr.P.C and same has not been done.
15. When the learned Government Advocate produced the records through 3rd respondent-Sub- inspector Mudigere before this court on 25.06.2019 the record clearly depicts that a complaint dated: 27.03.2013 made by the first petitioner- Smt.B.N.Meena is found in the records, about the allegations against Ravi Kumar with regard to torture, assault, dowry harassment and killing his wife for dowry. Though attempt was made by the respondents by filing an affidavit of Sri Anatha Padmanabha, police Sub-inspector working in Udupi town police station, that they have not disputed the second complaint available on record dated 27.03.2013 and have only stated that since investigation is already conducted by the authority it is not permissible to register one more FIR and same is not in conformity with the scheme of Cr.P.C. The fact remains that though records disclose second complaint made which clearly alleges cognizable offence made out against Ravi Kumar, in all fairness police ought to have registered the case and proceeded in accordance with law and same has not been done in the present case.
16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Section 154 of Cr.P.C in the case of Shivshankar Singh Vs State of Bihar and another reported in (2012) 1 SCC 130 has held as under:
“10. We do not find any force in the submission made on behalf of the respondents that as in respect of the same incident i.e., dacoity and murder of Gopal Singh, the appellant himself along with others is facing criminal trial, proceedings cannot be initiated against Respondent 2 at his behest as registration of two FIRs in respect of the same incident is not permissible in law, for the simple reason that law does not prohibit registration and investigation of two FIRs in respect of the same incident in case the versions are different. The test of sameness has to be applied otherwise there would not be cross-cases and counter-cases. Thus, filing another FIR in respect of the same incident having a different version of events is permissible. [Vide Ram Lal Narang v.State (Delhi Admn.), Sudhir v.State of M.P., T.T.Antony v.State of Kerala, Upkar Singh v.Ved Prakash and Babubhai v.State of Gujarat.] 18. Thus, it is evident that the law does not prohibit filing or entertaining of the second complaint even on the same facts provided the earlier complaint has been decided on the basis of insufficient material or the order has been passed without understanding the nature of the complaint or the complete facts could not be placed before the court or where the complainant came to know certain facts after disposal of the first complaint which could have tilted the balance in his favour. However, the second complaint would not be maintainable wherein the earlier complaint has been disposed of on full consideration of the case of the complainant on merit.
19. The protest petition can always be treated as a complaint and proceeded with in terms of Chapter XV Cr.PC.
Therefore, in case there is no bar to entertain a second complaint on the same facts, in exceptional circumstances, the second protest petition can also similarly be entertained only under exceptional circumstances. In case the first protest petition has been filed without furnishing the full facts/particulars necessary to decide the case, and prior to its entertainment by the court, a fresh protest petition is filed giving full details, we fail to understand as to why it should not be maintainable.”
17. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohindro Vs State of Punjab and others reported in AIR 2001 SC 2113 while considering provisions of Section 154 of Cr.P.C has held as under:
“1. The grievance of the appellant is that though she has approached the authority for registering a case against the alleged accused persons but the police never registered a case and never put the law in motion, and therefore, having failed in an attempt in the High Court to get a case registered she has approached this Court. Pursuant to the notice issued the respondents have entered appearance. Though the learned Counsel appearing for the State of Punjab stated that there had been an enquiry, we fail to understand as to how there can be an enquiry without registering a criminal case. On the facts alleged, it transpires that the appellant approached the police for registering a case and get the allegation investigated into and yet for no reasons whatsoever the police failed to register the case. In the aforesaid premises, we allow this appeal and direct that a case be registered on the basis of the report to be lodged by the appellant at the Police Station within a week from today and thereafter the matter will be duly investigated into and appropriate action be taken accordingly.
18. This court while considering the provisions of Section 154 of Cr.P.C in the case of Sri Mareppa Vs The State of Karnataka, Department of Home and others reported in ILR 2017 Kar 3109 has held as under:
“25. The said provisions make it clear that the registration of F.I.R. is mandatory, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation this is the general rule and must be strictly complied with. The scope of preliminary inquiry, even when permissible in such limited classes of cases, is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received. But only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence, proper stage for such verification of the veracity of the information is after registration of F.I.R. and not before registration of F.I.R.
The provisions of Section 155 of Code of Criminal Procedure directs that the substance of information relating to the commission of a non-cognizable offence lodged in a police station shall be entered in the station diary and the information shall be referred to the Magistrate. Moreover, every information received relating to commission of a non-cognizable offence also has to be registered. Section 156 of Code of Criminal Procedure confers on the police unrestricted power to investigate a cognizance offence without the order of a Magistrate or without a formal First Information Report.
The underpinnings of compulsory registration of FIR is not only to ensure transparency in the criminal justice delivery system but also to ensure judicial oversight.
Section 157(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure deploys the word "forthwith". Thus, any information received under Section 154(1) of Code of Criminal Procedure or otherwise has to be duly informed in the form of a report to the Magistrate. Thus, the commission of a cognizable offence is not only brought to the knowledge of the investigating agency but also to the subordinate judiciary.
37. Every police officer should have the courtesy towards the public is the essence of and the key to good public relations. It is essential that every Police Officer, from the man on beat to the highest executive, should have a sound knowledge of the value of the courtesy. The man on patrol is recognized as the basic unit in a police service set-up to protect life and property, prevent crime, detect crime and criminals, and maintain peace and order. In uniform he loses his identity as a private citizen, and to the average man on the street. HE IS THE WHOLE POLICE SERVICE. It is up to him to decide, through his own actions, in the exercise of his varied duties and in the way he handles a situation in the eyes of many viewers, what public opinion will be formed towards the reputation of his Service and its professional efficiency. A wrong step or bad approach to a situation will no doubt destroy the respect and trust of the public towards the whole Service. Every single police man should, therefore, realize that he carries in his hands the prestige and reputation of the Service he represents.
38. The police are the first visible point of contact of citizens. It is the only agency that has the widest possible contact with the people. Police functions are mostly prohibitive and regulatory in nature and this leaves an impression on the individual citizens that police interferes with the life, liberty and freedom of the people. It is the duty of the police to preserve order and prevent crime. When there is a violation of law, it is the duty of the police to apprehend the offenders and produce them before the court to be dealt with the procedure established by law. In fact, police is the most 'aggressively critical' public institution and therefore any malpractice or violation of human rights committed by the police comes into critical public gaze in the media and by human rights groups. Police as a public institution is created and strengthened by law and therefore, must be more responsible to people. The purpose and objective of police in a democratic society are 1. Prevention and detection of crime 2. Maintenance of public order 3. Respect for rule of law 4. Respect for the dignity of human person, and 5. Respect for freedom, liberty and rights of citizens.
19. In view of the aforesaid reasons, petitioners has made out legally enforceable right to issue writ of madamus directing the respondent No.3 to register complaint dated 27.03.2013 made by the first petitioner.
20. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Respondent No.3 is directed to register complaint dated 27.03.2013 made by the first petitioner and proceed strictly in accordance with law.
Sd/- JUDGE SBN