IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.M.SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NOS.2137/2016 & 3628/2016(GM-Police) BETWEEN:
1. SRI GANGAHANUMAIAH SON OF LATE BYLAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS.
2. SMT. MANGALAMMA WIFE OF GANGAHANUMAIAH AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS BOTH PETITIONERS RESIDNG AT MELEKATTIGANURU VILLAGE SOMAPURA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT – 562 132.
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI K.R.MOHAN RAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI A. LOURDU MARIYAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.
2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT VASANTHNAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 052.
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE NELAMANGALA POLICE STATION NELAMANGALA TALUK – 562 132 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
4. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE NELAMANGALA RURAL POLICE STATION NELAMANGALA TALUK – 562 132 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
5. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION KARNATAKA BELLARY ROAD R.T.NAGAR, BANGALORE – 19.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. H.C. KAVITHA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 4;
SRI P.PRASANNA KUMAR, SPL.SPP, FOR RESPONDENT NO.5) THESE WRIT PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS SO AS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION AT ANN-G AND H, THEREBY DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT 5 TO TAKE INVESTIGATION IN CRIME NO.389/2015 ON THE FILE OF HON’BLE PRINCIPAL JMFC, NELAMANGALA, REGISTERED BY THE NELAMANGALA RURAL POLICE STATION, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT AND SUBMIT THE FINAL REPORT IN RESPECT OF THE FIR IN ANNEXURE-F AND DIRECTION, THEREBY INITIATE APPROPRIATE ENQUIRY AAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.3 AND 4 FOR THEIR DERILICTION OF DUTY AND TO TAKE NECESSARY LEGAL ACTIONS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
THESE WRIT PETITIONS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioners, who are the parents of the deceased Anand, have filed a Complaint with the jurisdictional police and the same is registered with them in Crime No.389/2015. The petitioners’ grievance is that the death of the deceased Anand, who was found hanging, is homicidal and the deceased’s wife and mother-in-law are responsible for his death. But the jurisdictional police have filed charge sheet only for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC in connivance with the wife and mother-in-law of the deceased. The petitioners have submitted representations with different police authorities requesting for initiation of appropriate proceedings against police personnel named in the representation. In that light, the petitioners have sought for directions to the Centre Bureau of Investigation to take up investigation and file fresh charge sheet as well as for initiation of appropriate proceedings against the concerned police personnel, who are arrayed as respondents No. 2 and 4 in this writ petition.
2. Smt. H. C. Kavitha, learned HCGP submits that the police after a thorough investigation have filed charge sheet against the accused named by the petitioners for the offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
3. It is seen from the records that the charge sheet is filed for the said offence after recording the statement of different witnesses and drawing necessary mahazar for recovery of material objects. The petitioners’ grievance is that a homicidal death is not properly investigated because of the intervention of the accused and the charge sheet is filed for a lesser offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC. If indeed the petitioners are able to justify their contention that the accused are guilty of the offence punishable for homicidal death, the petitioners will have to have recourse to necessary proceedings as permissible under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The CBI, a specialized for investigation cannot be called upon to take up investigation, unless requisite pre-
conditions are established. The Petitioners have not made out any such case in this writ petition.
4. Therefore, the writ petitions are disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioners to seek necessary orders from the concerned Sessions Court.
SD/- JUDGE SPS