Karnataka High Court
Manikant vs The Deputy Police Commissioner on 4 January, 2024
Author: Rajendra Badamikar
Bench: Rajendra Badamikar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:142
CRL.RP No. 200145 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA BADAMIKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200145 OF 2023
(397)
BETWEEN:
MANIKANT
S/O NARENDRA RATHOD,
AGE: 30 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,
R/O H. NO.1-1-42,
SRI LAXMI TIMAPPA RICE MILL,
CHANDARAKI ROAD, GURUMITAKAL
TQ. GURUMITAKAL, DIST. YADGIR,
NOW RESIDENT OF B.G.-6 BHARAT PRIDE PARK,
OPPOSITE LAHOTI MOTORS,
HUMNABAD ROAD,
KALABURAGI-585104
Digitally signed
by SHILPA R ...PETITIONER
TENIHALLI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF (BY SRI AVINASH A. UPLAONKAR, ADVOCATE)
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE DEPUTY POLICE COMMISSIONER
(L AND O) AND SPECIAL EXECUTIVE MAGISTRATE,
KALABURAGI CITY,
KALABURAGI- 585102.
2. THE POLICE INSPECTOR SUB-URBAN
POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI TOWN,
DIST. KALABURAGI-585101,
BOTH RESPONDENTS REPRESENTED BY,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:142
CRL.RP No. 200145 of 2023
ADDL. SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)
This crl.r.p. is filed u/s.397(1) and 401 of cr.p.c. Praying
to call for records in no.29/gadiparu/m.a.g-2/kana/2023 on
the file of respondent deputy police commissioner (law and
order) and special executive magistrate, kalaburagi city
kalaburagi to satisfy the correctness. Set aside the impugned
notice dated 19.12.2023 no.29/gadiparu/m.a.g-2/kana/2023
issued by the respondent deputy police commissioner (law and
order) and special executive magistrate, kalaburagi city,
kalaburagi, by allowing this revision petition.
this petition, coming on for dictating orders, this day, the
court made the following:
ORDER
The petitioner has filed this petition under Section
397(1) and 401 of Cr.P.C. seeking to set aside the order
passed by the Deputy Police Commissioner (law and order)
and Special Executive Magistrate, Kalaburagi in
No.29/Gadiparu/M.A.G.-2/KaNa/2023 dated 19.12.2023.
2. The brief factual matrix leading to the case are
that:
NC: 2024:KHC-K:142
The petitioner was served with a show cause notice
under Section 58 of the Karnataka Police Act, (for short,
'the KP Act') calling his explanation as to why an
externment order should not be passed against him under
Section 55 of the KP Act. The petitioner by the impugned
notice dated 19.12.2023 was directed to appear before
respondent No.1 on 22.12.2023 at 10-30 p.m. and submit
his explanation. This order is being challenged by the
petitioner in this petition.
3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader
for the respondents/State. Perused the records.
4. The main contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the notice issued under Section 58 of
the KP Act is not in accordance with law and all the
Annexures were not supplied to him to enable him to give
a detail reply. Hence, he would submit that when the
preliminary notice is not in accordance with law and the
mandate of the law, it does not survive for consideration.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:142
He would also submit that the notice may be quashed and
if needed, respondent No.1 may be directed to issue a
fresh notice with enclosures of all the Annexures to enable
the petitioner to give proper reply.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader would contend that the notice was issued, wherein
gist was disclosed and no doubt the details of the gist
were not given, but the petitioner himself has applied and
obtained all the relevant documents and he had an
opportunity to give the detail reply. He would also contend
that since the petitioner is interested in getting time to
give reply, he may be given some time to give reply and
the mistake committed is already rectified by supplying
the relevant documents. Hence, he would seek for
dismissal of the petition by giving proper opportunity to
the petitioner to submit his reply.
6. Having heard the arguments and perusing the
records, it is evident that a notice was served on
19.12.2023 on the petitioner under Section 58 of the KP
NC: 2024:KHC-K:142
Act calling his explanation as to why an externment order
should not be passed against him under Section 55 of the
KP Act. No doubt, the notice dated 19.12.2023 does not
include Annexures which were relied including the report
of the concerned officer. However, the records produced
by the petitioner itself further disclose that on the same
day, he has approached respondent No.2 demanding
relevant documents, on which, a notice under Section 58
of the KP Act came to be issued. It is also evident that the
documents were supplied to him on 23.12.2023.
7. These documents disclose that the petitioner is
involved in number of criminal cases since 2014. The
records further disclose that some of the cases are still
under investigation, some of the cases were quashed,
some of the cases were stayed and in some of the cases,
he was convicted. The details were also recorded in the
Annexures along with the report of the Police Inspector of
Sub-Urban, Kalaburagi dated 28.11.2023. This report
NC: 2024:KHC-K:142
clarifies that the petitioner was being prosecuted since
2014 for one or the other cases.
8. The main contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner is that the notice issued under Section 58 of
the KP Act was not in accordance with law, as all the
Annexures with the report of the investigating officer were
not furnished to him. In this context, he placed reliance on
an unreported decision of this Court in Criminal Revision
No.100220/2016 dated 27.02.2017. However, the said
case is pertaining to passing an exterment order which
was challenged. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
invited the attention of the Court to paragraph Nos.11 and
13 of the said judgment, wherein a notice was said to be
very vague and the contents of the report nor gist of the
report submitted by the Superintend of Police is reiterated
and hence, it is held that there is no compliance of Section
58 of the KP Act. He further by relying on an observation
made in paragraph No.13 argued that subsequent granting
of opportunity after initiation of the proceedings will not
NC: 2024:KHC-K:142
cure the initial defects occurred, but admittedly, the said
decision is pertaining to externment order and after
passing externment order, the documents pertaining to
notice under Section 58 of the KP Act were furnished to
the petitioner therein and hence, it is held that the defect
is not curable one, but in the instant case though the
documents were not furnished along with the notice dated
19.12.2023, on the same day, the petitioner has applied
for furnishing relevant documents and obtained the same
on 23.12.2023. Hence, he has got sufficient opportunity
now to give explanation to the preliminary notice issued
under Section 58 of the KP Act.
9. Much arguments have been advanced regarding
political rivalry, compelling for initiation of these
proceedings, but the said arguments cannot be accepted,
as records reveal that since 2014 during the tenure of
different Governments, the petitioner was being
prosecuted. Considering these facts and circumstances,
the principles enunciated in the above referred decision
NC: 2024:KHC-K:142
cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances
of the case in hand.
10. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
further placed reliance on an unreported judgment of the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.No.392/2023 (GM-
POLICE) dated 21.03.2023. The said decision is based on
the decision of the Apex Court in Deepak Vs. State of
Maharashtra1. In the said case, the fundamental right
under Article 19 of the Constitution of India was
considered and it is observed that removal of persons
about to commit offence under Section 56 of the 1951 Act
was considered. Further, in the above referred decision,
there were no sufficient material placed, but in the instant
case, it is only a preliminary notice calling the explanation
show causing as to why an externment order under
Section 55 of the KP Act should not be passed. The
petitioner is at liberty to give reply and though there was
an initial defect in issuance of notice, the same was get
2022 SCC Online SC 99
NC: 2024:KHC-K:142
rectified by himself by obtaining the relevant documents
and after having obtained the relevant documents, now
the petitioner cannot again urge that these proceedings
may be quashed and fresh proceedings may be initiated.
This is the wastage of time of the Court as well as
concerned officials. The petitioner now requires some
reasonable time to give reply to the notice issued under
Section 58 of the KP Act, as he has already received all the
relevant annexed documents and he is at liberty to give
reply to the said notice.
11. Further, under Section 58 of the KP Act, an
opportunity of hearing is required to be given before
passing any order under Sections 54, 55 and 56 of the KP
Act. Now the main grievance of the petitioner is that he
did not get an opportunity. If that is his grievance, that
can be rectified by giving him a reasonable opportunity to
file his explanation/objections statement to the notice
issued under Section 58 of the KP Act. Considering these
facts and circumstances, the principles relied by the
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:142
learned counsel for the petitioner in above referred
decisions would not come to his aid in any way. Hence, the
petition is devoid of any merits, does not survive for
consideration. However, the petitioner is required to get a
reasonable opportunity to submit his explanation to notice
issued under Section 58 of the KP Act which is challenged
in this petition. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
The petition stands dismissed.
However, respondent No.1 herein is directed to give
an opportunity of 30 days to the petitioner to file his
objections statement to the notice issued under Section 58
of the Karnataka Police Act dated 19.12.2023 from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Sd/-
JUDGE
RSP
