Karnataka HC Rejects Advocates Association's Plea For CBI Probe Into Lawyer's Suicide After Alleged Torture By Police Officer, Constitutes SIT

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (December 4) rejected a plea for transfer of investigation to CBI in an abetment to suicide case–concerning the death of an advocate–registered against a Deputy Superintendent of Police.

It however constituted an SIT to investigate into the alleged crime, to be headed by IPS Vinay Verma, Superintendent of police, CBI, ACB Bengaluru and the SIT is to complete the investigation within three months.

Justice M Nagaprasanna while dictating his order said, "Application of the Association to refer matter to CBI stands rejected. However, i deem it appropriate to constitute a SIT to investigate into the crime".

The court said that the "team will be headed by IPS Vinay Verma, Superintendent of police, CBI, ACB Bengaluru". It also dismissed the petition filed by DySP Kanaka Lakshmi B M seeking quashing of the FIR.

"SIT shall take over investigations in the abetment case forthwith. Investigation to be completed within an outer limit of three months," the court added.

The court further said, "...Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, this has sprung on the allegation of the complainant that petitioner (DySP) has demanded Rs 25 lakh from accused no 8 (deceased). Barring this there is no other document. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to observe that when the SIT is investigating into the offence of Section 108 of BNS if would come across material for the demand of Rs 25 lakh by the petitioner the investigation in the aforesaid offence of Section 7A of the PC Act shall ensue, in accordance with law".

A detailed copy of the order is awaited.

The high court had on November 27, reserved its order on an application filed by Advocates Association of Bengaluru, seeking a direction to transfer to Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), an abetment to suicide case–concerning the death of an advocate–registered against a Deputy Superintendent of Police.

The high court had while reserving its verdict, orally questioned the police authorities if it had conducted any investigation against the concerned police officer who is accused of torturing the deceased to death, adding that "arms of law will not reach the police" which is why the officer had not sought for anticipatory bail.

The case was registered after an advocate Kumari Jeeva Subbarayan is stated to have committed suicide alleging torture at the hands of the concerned police officer.

Earlier Jeeva Subbarayan, had approached the court alleging torture being meted on her by the DySP Kanaka Lakshmi B M and vide order of November 13, probe was directed to be video graphed.

However, on November 22, alleging that the investigating officer has meted out such torture upon her she, after penning down a death note running into 13 pages, had committed suicide.

Following which the police registered a case against the police officer under section 108 (abetment to suicide) of the BNS. After her death the Association had preferred an application seeking transfer of the investigation in the case insofar as it concerns the offence of abetment to suicide to the hands of an independent agency.

During the hearing on November 27 Senior Advocate Vivek Subba Reddy and President of the Association argued that investigation, if it has to be fair and generate public confidence, should be handed over to the CBI, as one officer will always protect the other in the police force.

Senior Advocate D R Ravishankar for the association said “Not only the bench, but the bar has got a greater responsibility to discharge the obligations enshrined in the Constitution”.

Meanwhile Additional SPP B N Jagadeesha appearing for the State had opposed the application filed by the Association. The SPP said, “We want to investigate the matter because the main accused were found at the body along with others. Various uncomfortable questions were asked to the accused because of the materials we have”.

To which the bench orally had said, “What investigation have you done against a police officer who is alleged of torturing someone to death. Has she (Officer) taken anticipatory bail, she will not take it because she is a DySP. Because the arms of law will not reach the police. That's why she has not taken anticipatory bail. Then why have you not arrested her? Why have you not treated this police officer as a common alleged accused in any other crime? For a crime which is 306 IPC just because she is a police officer she is away from the arms of law”.

It had added, “In a case of a 13-page death note in the case of a common man would you not have arrested immediately. Or somebody would have not taken anticipatory bail. Just because it is a police officer all hands stalled otherwise all guns blazing”.

Advocate Venkatesh Dalwai for the police officer had then said, “What falls from the court acts as a catalyst and law should not be given a go by for me.” The bench replied “If it would have been a common man what action the police would have taken”.

Case Title: KANAKA LAKSHMI B M AND State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Petition No 12695 of 2024.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 496