Karnataka High Court
Rajegowda vs State Of Karnataka on 8 November, 2024
Author: Suraj Govindaraj
Bench: Suraj Govindaraj
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:45389
WP No. 29088 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
WRIT PETITION NO. 29088 OF 2013 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
RAJEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
S/O LATE HALLEGOWDA,
RESIDING AT NO.374,
DAVANI STREET,HUNSUR TOWN,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. K M PRATHIBHA.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
Digitally signed BANGALORE-560001
by SHWETHA
RAGHAVENDRA 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT
Location: HIGH HOME DEPARTMENT,
COURT OF VIDHANA SOUDHA,
KARNATAKA DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560001
3. ZAMEER AHMED
DAFFEDAR
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
HUNSUR RURAL POLICE STATION,
DAVANI STREET,HUNSUR TOWN,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
4. SMT. LAKSHMI BAI
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS,
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:45389
WP No. 29088 of 2013
D/O KAMALA BAI,
RESIDING AT DAVANI STREET,
HUNSUR TOWN,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
5. VIJAYA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O KALLEAIAH,
DAVANI STREET, HUNSUR TOWN,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
6. MANJU
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
S/O KUSANNA,
CLOTH MERCHANT, DAVANI STREET,
HUNSUR TOWN,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
7. JAYANNA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
S/OLINGACHARI,
DAVANI STREET, HUNSUR TOWN,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
8. SOMESHA
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
S/O MAHADEVAMMA,
DAVANI STAREET, HUNSUR TOWN,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
9. SMT.MAHADEVAMMA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
W/O MAHADEVA,
DAVANI STAREET, HUNSUR TOWN,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
10. SMT. BADDI YESHODAMMA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
W/O SHANKAREGOWDA,
DAVANI STAREET, HUNSUR TOWN,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
11. KEMPALINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
S/O YAJAMAN LINGEGOWDA,
DAVANI STREET, HUNSUR TOWN,
-3-
NC: 2024:KHC:45389
WP No. 29088 of 2013
MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
12. H.K KUMARA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O KRISHNEGOWDA,
DAVANI STREET, HUNSUR TOWN,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
13. H.K. KRISHNA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
S/O KRISHNEGOWDA,
REPORTER OF ANDOLANA NEWSPAPER
DAVANI STREET, HUNSUR TOWN,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
14. PAINTER ANANTHA
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
S/O NARASIMHAIAH,
DAVANI STREET, HUNSUR TOWN,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
15. SMT. SUNITHA JAYARAM
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
W/O JAYARAMEGOWDA,
DAVANI STREET,HUNSUR TOWN,
MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
16. ESHWARA
POOJARI BY PROFESSION,
RESIDING AT KARIGOWDRA STREET,
HUNSUR TOWN, MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
17. MUTHURAJ
POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
HUNSUR TOWN POLICE STATION,
HUNSUR, MYSORE DISTRICT
18. SURESHA
POLICE CONSTABLE,
HUNSUR TOWN POLICE STATION,
HUNSUR,MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
19. NANJUNDEGOWDA
POLICE ASSISTANT SUB-INSPECTOR,
HUNSUR TOWN POLICE STATION,
HUNSUR, MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
-4-
NC: 2024:KHC:45389
WP No. 29088 of 2013
20. MANDAPPA
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
HUNSUR TOWN POLICE STATION,
HUNSUR, MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
21. SHIVAKUMARR
POLICE CONSTABLE,
HUNSUR TOWN POLICE STATION,
HUNSUR, MYSORE DISTRICT-571105
22. SUPER INTENDENT OF POLICE
MYSORE,
MYSORE DISTRICT.
(IMPLEADED AS PER ORDER DATED 25.2.2015)
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R1 & R2, R22,
R3-SERVED;
SRI. SANTHOSH G. BHAT., ADVOCATE FOR R4 TO R6
& R8 TO R16, R7-SERVED;
SRI. B.S. NAGARAJ., ADVOCATE FOR R17-R21)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR ORDER OR
DIRECTION IN THE SIMIALAR NATURE DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT
AUTHORITIES TO TAKE ACTION ON THE REPRESENTATIONS GIVEN
BY HE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURES-B1 TO B4 DATED 12.7.2002,
21.11.2011, 2.3.2013 AND 2.4.2013 RESPECTIVELY TO ENTURST
IMPARTIAL ENQUIRY TO CBI SO THAT TRUTH OF THE ALLEGATIONS
MADE BY THE PETITIONER WILL COME OUT AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS
UNDER:
-5-
NC: 2024:KHC:45389
WP No. 29088 of 2013
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the
following reliefs:
a. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any
other writ or order or direction in the similar nature
directing the respondent authorities to take action
on the representation given by the petitioner vide
Annexure-B1 to B4 dated 12.07.2002, 21.11.2011,
02.03.2013 and 02.04.2013 respectively to entrust
impartial enquiry to CBI so that truth of the
allegations made by the petitioner will come out in
the interest of justice and equity.
b. Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other
writ or direction in the similar nature directing the
respondent to pay compensation of Rs.20.00 lakhs
to the petitioner for having lost his wife in the
heinous criminal offence committed by respondents
3 to 21 as an adhoc arrangement so as to
compensate the loss, mental agony, harassment
sustained by the petitioner;
c. Grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble
Court may deems fit to grant in the facts and
circumstances of the case in the interest of justice
and equity.
2. The petitioner claims to be the husband of one
Pushpalatha who he claims was abducted on
11.09.2000 by respondents No.3 to 10 as regard
which he lodged a complaint on 12.09.2000. The said
complaint was not registered nor investigated.
NC: 2024:KHC:45389
Subsequently, on 13.10.2000, respondent No.17
himself registered a case that Pushpalatha is missing
and missing person case was registered without
adverting to the allegations made by the petitioner
that she has been abducted.
3. On 1.11.2000 when certain bones, saree and slippers
were found in Sy.No.116, the respondent registered
a case of homicide under Section 302 of IPC against
one Nityananda, Byregowda and Rajigowda which
came to be numbered as S.C. No.14 and 80/2002
and came to be dismissed by Judgment dated
10.06.2004 on the ground that the mother of
Pushpalatha who had deposed as PW-1 had not
identified the saree, bangles and slippers as that of
Pushpalatha and that there was no evidence placed
on record to establish twhat the bones and skull
which was found in Sy.No.116 were that of
Pushpalatha and a such, they not having been
proved that Pushpalatha was either alive or dead, the
prosecution having failed to prove the death of
Pushpalatha, the accused came to be acquitted.
NC: 2024:KHC:45389
4. It is in that background that the petitioner is before
this Court contending that the respondents are trying
to suppress relevant facts and conducted a false
investigation falsely implicated and filed a false
complaint against three persons which ended in the
acquittal. As such, the investigation which has been
carried out does not inspire any confidence, the local
police are in cahoots and collusion with abductors, as
such a request is made to refer the matter to the
Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
5. On enquiry, learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that the petitioner-husband believes that
Pushpalatha is still alive and is in the custody of
respondents No.3 to 10 who have abducted her. Her
submission is that pushpalatha having been abducted
and after the registering of case under Section 302
on 11.09.2000, on 1.11.2000 within a period of 45
days alleging that skull and bones were found is
completely unbelievable. It is not possible for the
body to compose within such a short period of time.
NC: 2024:KHC:45389
6. On these grounds, she submits that the malafies on
part of the jurisdictional police is completely
established requiring this Court's intervention
referring the matter for fresh and proper
investigation by CBI.
7. Learned AGA, on instructions, submits that case in
S.C. No.14 and 80/2002 had been genuinely
registered. Be that as it may, if this court were to be
of the opinion that fresh investigation is to be
conducted, the State would have no objection. The
Criminal Investigation Department (CID) could
conduct the said investigation.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
having found substance in the said submission, firstly
that the body could not have decomposed in such a
short period of time to leave behind the skull and
bones. Secondly, there is no proper identification
done as held by Sessions court in S.C. No.14 and 80
of 2002 and no scientific report which had been filed
like that DNA report to establish that the skull and
NC: 2024:KHC:45389
bones are that of Pushpalatha. I am of the
considered opinion that investigation which had been
carried out is completely hopeless and does not
inspire confidence.
9. There is some credence in the submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner that the local police may
favour respondents No.3 to 10 and proper
investigation may not be carried out. Hence, I am of
the considered opinion that an officer of the rank of
Superintendent of Police, CID, would be a proper
person to investigate into the allegations made,
including that of the allegations made against
respondents NO.12 to 21 since the petitioner
strenuously contends that they have also suppressed
the fact of abduction, as also made several
allegations made in the above petition.
10. In view of the aforesaid finding, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The petition stands disposed.
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC:45389
ii. The respondent-Addl. Director General of Police
is directed to appoint the Investigating Officer
not below the rank of Superintendent of Police
of the CID as aforesaid within a period of 7
(seven) days from today to carry out a fresh
and proper investigation.
iii. Investigation to be to be completed within a
period of 180 days and the report to be filed on
the file of this Court in the present matter.
iv. Based on the above investigation, if there is
any complicity found by any of the police
officers, apart from initiating any criminal
action, the Director General of Police is also
directed to initiate such disciplinary proceedings
as may be required.
Sd/-
(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)
JUDGE
LN
