Complainant Not Satisfied With Acquittal Can't Institute Proceedings Before Human Rights Commission Alleging Dereliction Of Duty By Police: Karnataka HC

A single judge bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani made the observation while allowing a petition filed by police inspector Siddalingappa S T and quashed the order passed by the Commission dated 20.06.2015, imposing a penalty of Rs.10,000 on the charges of dereliction of duty.

The complainant K.A. Appanna had telephoned the petitioner on 26.09.2010 and informed him that on 19.09.2010 that while having food at the LVT Daba, he had a scuffle with a person named Mr.Lakshmikanth and 15 others concerning the payment of commission for purchasing land. He requested the petitioner to register a complaint.

The petitioner telephoned PSI Rajendra Kumar, and instructed him to take necessary action. Pursuant to which an FIR was filed for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 342, 323, 324, 506(b), 327 read with Section 149 of IPC against Lakshmikanth and fifteen others. Thereafter, the PSI being the Investigating Officer, conducted the investigation and filed a charge sheet. Based on the charge sheet, the Court conducted proceedings and passed the Judgment acquitting the accused on 15.07.2013.

Following which the complainant approached the Commission, which forwarded the complaint to the Inspector General of Police for conducting an inquiry and to submit a report. Based on the report submitted by IGP, KHRC proved the charges only against Mr.Rajendra Kumar, PSI Doddaballapur. The Commission issued notice to him on 30.04.2012 to give a written reason for the report submitted by the Inspector General of Police.

He then submitted a written statement of reason justifying his actions. Subsequently, the Commission based on the complaint, report of IGP, KHRC, and a written statement of reason by Rajendra Kumar, vide order dated 20.06.2015 imposed a fine of Rs.10,000 not only on Rajendra Kumar’s PSI but also on the petitioner.

The petitioner contended that petitioner being the Circle Inspector has discharged his duties honestly and obediently. The moment the petitioner received a telephone call from the complainant – the second respondent, he properly instructed the PSI Mr.Rajendra Kumar to act in accordance with the law.

The bench on going through the records said “Proceedings before the appropriate forum have been concluded. It is pivotal to note that the order of acquittal was passed by the court. If the second respondent had any grievance or was not satisfied with the order of acquittal of Lakshmikanth, the proper course would have been in a different Forum altogether.”

It added “Even the finding of the commission that the petitioner has not instructed the PSI in writing is wholly incorrect and untenable.”

Following which it held “Legal action was set in motion and the court has passed the judgment as per the law. Therefore, in my opinion, there is no dereliction of duty as alleged by the complainant. The commission has failed to have regard to relevant considerations and disregarded relevant matters. In my considered opinion, the imposition of penalty so far as the petitioner is concerned is unsustainable in law. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside.”

Accordingly it allowed the petition.

Case Title: Siddalingappa S T And Karnataka State Human Rights Commission.

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 51993 OF 2015

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 73

Date of Order: 03-02-2023

Appearance: Advocate Sagar for Advocate Deepak J for petitioner.

Advocate Gopalkrishna Soodi for R1.