Sex CD Scandal: Karnataka HC Quashes Proceedings Initiated Against Bengaluru Police Commissioner Kamal Pant For Delay In Registering FIR

A single Judge bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar said,

"There was no definite information that a cognizable offence had been committed. Even assuming that SIT came to be constituted yielding to the pressure put by the Minister, so far as the petitioners are concerned, it is impossible to infer that non registration of FIR on the basis of the report given by Dinesh Kallahalli would amount to an offence punishable under Section 166A of IPC."

The petition filed by Pant, Deputy Commissioner of Police M N Anucheth and Police Inspector Maruthi B, was initially disposed of by order dated December 14, 2021. However, since the complainant moved an application seeking to be heard in the matter the court had recalled its earlier order and re-heard the matter and passed the final order on January 31.

Petitioners Submissions:

Advocate P.Prasanna Kumar appearing for the petitioners had submitted that the main allegation in the complaint is that the third petitioner who is the Inspector of Police, Cubbon Park Police Station failed to register an FIR on the basis of the information given by one Dinesh Kallahalli with regard to sexual harassment on a girl by the Ex-minister of the Government of Karnataka.

Further it was said that the report made by Dinesh Kallahalli actually did not disclose commission of a cognizable offence and in fact he himself requested the police Inspector to ascertain the truth.

It was said that Kallahalli made the report on 02.03.2021. The Inspector issued a notice to him for inquiry and that on 05.03.2021, he later appeared and told the inspector that the person who had given him the CD containing the intimate moments of the Minister with the girl did not contact him again. On 07.03.2021, Dinesh Kallahalli addressed a letter to the Police Inspector stating that he would withdraw the complaint. In the meantime as the Minister had also given a report to the police against unknown persons, the Police Commissioner constituted a Special Investigation Team (SIT) on 11.03.2021. The Inspector of Cubbon Park Police Station is also a member of SIT. Then on 26.03.2021, at the instance of the victim girl, an FIR was registered.

Kumar contended that, "Kallahalli's report did not disclose commission of a cognizable offence, FIR was not registered. Later on he himself withdrew his complaint. Soon after the victim girl made a report, an FIR was registered. Therefore it cannot be said that the petitioners have committed an offence punishable under Section 166A of IPC."

He added that probably the second respondent did not know all these developments and he rushed to the Court of Magistrate with a complaint being unaware of the factual aspects. The petitioners never showed dereliction in duty and if prosecution is permitted, it will demoralize the police officers for no fault of theirs.

Complainant opposed the plea:

It was submitted by the complainant Adar R Iyer appearing in person that the report made by Diensh Kallahalli discloses commission of cognizable offence. The moment they received a report of this type, the third petitioner ought to have registered an FIR as per the dictum of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari v. Govt of UP.

Further, he said that the very fact that the Government ordered for the constitution of SIT shows that it yielded to the pressure exerted by the Minister. But a common man's complaint remained unattended.

Court findings:

The bench went through the complaint made by Kallahali to the Cubbon Park police station and said, "He gave this report to the first petitioner based on some information given to him by a person who had recognized himself in a social movement. In the third para, Dinesh Kallahalli requested the Police Commissioner to verify the truth and afford protection to the girl."

It added, "if this report is read as a whole, it may be stated that Dinesh Kallahalli was not sure about a cognizable offence being committed."

Taking note of the fact that police directed Kallahalli to appear before it for carrying out preliminary inquiry, the court said, "Be that as it may, if the action taken by the petitioners pursuant to Dinesh Kallahalli's report is seen, it may be stated that there is no legal infirmity in it, for as observed above, the report in clear and unequivocal terms does not indicate commission of a cognizable offence and probably in this view, the third petitioner wanted to hold a preliminary inquiry."

The court then opined, "According to the dictum of the Supreme Court, in the case of Lalitha Kumari, FIR has to be registered the moment, report is given that a cognizable offence has been committed. The police should not waste time in registration of FIR. But in the case on hand, there was no definite information that a cognizable offence had been committed."

Finally the court held, "If the petitioners are prosecuted for the offence under Section 166A of IPC, it amounts to abuse of the process of Court. Hence the proceedings before the Magistrate and the investigation ordered by him under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C, cannot be sustained."

Case Title: Kamal Pant v. State of Karnataka

Case No: Writ Petition No.21264 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 39

Date of Order: January 31, 2022

Appearance: Advocate Prasanna Kumar P for petitioners; Advocate Rohith B.J, for R1; Adarsh R Iyer, R2

Click Here To Read/Download Order