Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.8565/2013(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
ADVOCATE: JAI PRAKASH NARAYANA.K.G AND PARTY IN PERSON, NO.29. I FLOOR, SARAVA, 2ND CROSS ROAD, 3RD MAIN ROAD, OPPOSITE MATHA AMRUTHANANDA MAYI ASHRAM, KPSC LAY OUT, JNANABHARATHI 2ND STAGE, JNANABHARATHI POST, BANGALORE UNIVERSITY, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA. INDIA- 560 056. ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI.JAIPRAKASH NARAYANA.K.G., ADV.)
AND
SRI.HITHENDRA, CBI ACB LOCAL CHIEF & DIG CBI BANGALORE ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, NEW INTERNATIONAL AIR PORT ROAD, GANGANAGARA, BANGALORE,
KARNATAKA, INDIA.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
CHIEF OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, QUENS ROAD OFFICE, BANGALORE-560 001.
HONOURABLE PRIME MINISTER
OF GOVT. OF INDIA,
PMO OFFICE,
NEW DELHI-110 001.
DEFENCE MINISTER, GOVT.OF INDIA,
NEW DELHI-110 001.
FINANCE MINISTER OFFICE, REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT.OF INDIA,
NEW DELHI-110 001.
KUMBALAGODU HEAD OF
THE POLICE STATION,
NEWLY ESTABLISED POLICE STATION,
KUMBALAGODU,
BANGALORE SOUTH,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
BANGALORE. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR A. PATIL, HCGP FOR R7)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE AN APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER AND DIRECTIONS TO ALL THE CONCERNED IMPORTANTLY TO R2 AND R7 TO ISSUE AN ORDER TO THE CONCERNED TO PROVIDE PROTECTIONS AND SECURITY COVER TO THE PETITIONER AND TO HIS NUCLEAR FAMILY AND TO PROTECT HIS CONSTITUTIONAL FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND HIS NUCLEAR FAMILY AND HIS INDIAN HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondent No.7 and file memo of appearance in four weeks.
The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: [a] Wherefore, the petitioner my self advocate Jai Prakash Narayana K.G. most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court be courteous to Issue an appropriate writ, order and direction to the respondent No.2
& No.7, and I the petitioner most respectfully prays this Hon’ble Court to save my constitutional fundamental rights, my nuclear family and my Indian Hindu Undivided Family.
[b[ Wherefore, I, the petitioner my self advocate Jai Prakash Narayana K.G. most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court to issue an appropriate writ order and directions to all the concerned importantly to respondent No.2 & No.7, and I the petitioner most respectfully prays this Hon’ble Court to issue an order to the concerned to provide protections and security cover to me & to my nuclear family & to protect my constitutional fundamental rights and my nuclear family and my Indian Hindu Undivided Family.
[c] Wherefore, I, the petitioner my self advocate Jai Prakash Narayana K.G. most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court to issue an appropriate writ order and directions to all the concerned especially to
respondent No.1 & No.3, ACB, CBI, Bangalore for Judicial Criminal Investigations immediately. Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court to issue of appropriate writ order and directions and to provide investigative report to this Honorable High Court within legally permissible period within 3 months to the date of this writ petition my lord, respondent No.1 and No.3 that is to Sri. Hithendra, DIG ACB CBI Bangalore to initiate immediate Judicial Criminal Enquiries & with an oath of secrecy to the Income Tax-Dept Queens Road, Bangalore, Lokayukta Bangalore, and other Legal Anticorruption Agencies like Enforcement Directories etc.,
Firstly it is to be noticed that when this petition had been listed before the Hon’ble Division Bench as a Public Interest Petition, the Hon’ble Division Bench by its order dated 19.02.2013 has indicated that the relief prayed in the petition is personal in nature and therefore has directed that the same be listed before the
Court having roster for the subject. Since, the learned roster Judge had disabled himself from hearing the petition, the petition is placed before this Court.
The party-in-person who is a qualified advocate has effectively putforth his contention before this Court. While contending that prayer No. [c] which has been noticed above is in the nature of public interest, he would further contend that all his efforts have gone in vain inasmuch as the complaint preferred by the petitioner with the respondent No.1 has not received consideration and as such enquiry should be ordered by this Court.
First and foremost, since the Hon’ble Division Bench has indicated that the petition could not be entertained as a Public Interest Petition, at this juncture in any event, as the single Judge of this Court is not vested with the jurisdiction to consider the instant petition seeking any intervention in public interest, I am
of the opinion, the said prayer made in the instant petition cannot be considered herein. However, keeping in view the reference made by the petitioner-party-in- person to Annexure-E, wherein certain allegations have been made and also reference was made to certain portion of the pleadings, the said pleadings if could be fortified by the petitioner with further material, it would still be open for the petitioner to file a appropriate petition in public interest, if such a case is made out with supporting documents instead of mere allegations.
The next question that would arise for consideration in the instant petition is with regard to prayers [a] and [b] which has been made. The petitioner- party-in-person on referring to the pleadings would refer to the position in which petitioner and his family members are placed as he has raised such issues and there being threat to their safety from some persons against whom certain issues are being raised by the
petitioner. The incident which is stated to have occurred, wherein his wife was blackmailed and was subjected to certain harassment and undesirable actions have also been stated. In that regard, the petitioner himself has brought to the notice of this Court that a private complaint as contemplated under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code has been filed before the CJM, Bangalore, since the police did not take action. In that regard, the petitioner also states that the CJM, Bangalore has directed that certain other accused persons be brought on record in the private complaint. In that view, insofar as the incident regarding which the petitioner has grievance, an appropriate course has been adopted by filing a private complaint which would be looked into by the Magistrate based on the materials that would be tendered to come to a conclusion whether cognisance should be taken and the matter should be proceeded further or not. That discretion is left with the learned CJM.
Yet, since the petitioner is making out a grievance that there is threat to his person and his family, this aspect of the matter cannot be ignored inasmuch as a citizen of this country is entitled to protection at the hands of law enforcing authorities and it should be left to their judgment and wisdom. Therefore, the authority concerned at the outset shall assess the threat perception sought to be made by the petitioner and thereafter, if such action is required, the same is to be taken. In the instant case, the request in that regard has not yet been made by the petitioner to the appropriate authority, though the petitioner contends that he has made such complaints to the Superintendent of Police, Ramanagara District and also to the Station House Officer of the police station having jurisdiction namely the 7th respondent and it is alleged that no action has been taken by the said authorities.
Furthermore, since the petitioner states with regard to certain acts having been taken place within the jurisdiction of Bangalore City as also the Ramanagara District, it would be appropriate for the petitioner to make an appropriate representation to the Director General and Inspector General of Police bringing all these aspects to his notice supported by materials to evidence such grievance. If such representation is made by the petitioner, the Director General and Inspector General of Police would get the threat perception putforth by the petitioner, assessed through the competent officers and if any action is required in that regard, the same shall be taken by the police authorities. Or else, the result of such assessment of the threat perception shall be made known to the petitioner in that regard if in the wisdom of the police no further action is required. The representation in that regard shall be made by the petitioner within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The steps taken by the Director General and Inspector
General of Police through his subordinate police authorities shall be made known to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible, but not later than four weeks from the date on which the representation is made.
In view of part of the grievance alone being considered and also since I have already noticed that the Hon’ble Division Bench did not make any orders with regard to the so called public interest and since I have already indicated reasons for not entertaining the prayer [c] in that regard, I have not chosen to issue notice to other respondents.
In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE
ST*