K.M. Satish vs The State of Karnataka

Dilip B. Bhosale, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

As per the direction issued on last occasion, respondent No. 2 - the Superintendent of Police, Gulbarga is present in the Court.

This appeal is filed by one K.M. Satish, Police Inspector, Brahmpur Police Station, Gulbarga. He was not party to the writ petition No. 205460/2014. This writ petition was filed by respondent No. 4, seeking direction to respondent No. 2 - the Superintendent of Police, Gulbarga, to enquire and investigate into his complaint dated 23.12.2013 and to take appropriate action thereon.

We have perused the complaint dated 23.12.2013. It was addressed to the Sub-Inspector, Police Station, Brahmpur. In this compliant, after narrating the facts, the complainant requested the Sub-Inspector to investigate the matter so as to recover, from one Suhasini Reddy, the amount, which was wrongly credited to her account, by encashing the cheque issued by the complainant-company of Rs.24,952/-. We are not entering into further merits/facts of the case.

Learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition in paragraphs 3 and 4 made the following observations:

"3. When this matter came up for preliminary hearing on 17.9.2014, this court directed the learned AGA to keep present the police inspector of Brahmapura police station, to which police station the petitioner had filed his complaint, before this Court. Accordingly, to-day Sri. K.M. Sathish, Inspector of Police of Brahmapura police station is present before this Court. On enquiry, he has the audacity to answer to this court that he was not aware of this complaint being lodged by petitioner on 23/24.12.2013 and he would further state that it was never brought to his notice that such a complaint was filed by petitioner. This clearly shows the manner in which the said officer is functioning. This has to be viewed seriously in the background of the observations made by the Apex Court in series of matters, wherein it is held that as and when a complaint is lodged, the primary duty of station house officer is to register the complaint and to draw first information report on the said complaint and thereafter, to commence investigation.

However, in the instant case, it is seen that except receiving the complaint on 23.12.2013 and issuing an acknowledgement on 24.12.2013, nothing worth mentioning is done by the Inspector of police of Brahmapura station. By this, he has made it clear that his presence in the said police station is mere ornamental and not for any productive service. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that allowing such kind of officers to be in-charge of police station, is nothing but brining disrespect to the department of police and also causing disservice to the general public. Hence, the Superintendent of Police, Gulbarga, is hereby directed to initiate proceedings against Sri. K.M. Sathish, police inspector of Brahmapur police station, by immediately keeping him under suspension and by placing the complaint filed by the petitioner herein in the hands of another officer to conduct investigation within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order and to file appropriate report."

(emphasis supplied)

The appellant was not party to the writ petition and he remained present before the Court in view of the directions issued by learned Judge. In reply to one of the questions put to him by the learned Judge, he stated that he was not aware of the complaint lodged by respondent No. 4 dated 23.12.2013. In this backdrop, we had directed learned Government Advocate to keep the Superintendent of Police, Gulbarga, present in the Court to find out as to what is the procedure usually followed by the police stations whenever such a complaint is received by them. He informed us that such complaints are always received by Station House Officer (SHO). In this case also the complaint was tendered to and received by the SHO, who, according to the Superintendent of Police, simply filed it. He submits that the SHO ought to have placed it either before the Sub-Inspector or the Inspector, which he did not do so. He, therefore, states that the appellant was genuinely not aware about the complaint lodged by respondent No. 4 dated 23.12.2013. In any case, respondent No. 4 i.e., the petitioner in writ petition, had not made any grievance against the appellant, nor did he seek any action against the appellant or any other member of the staff of the concern police station.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 4 fairly states that respondent No. 4 has no objection for expunging the part of the order, whereby observations are made against the appellant and the direction is issued to the Superintendent of Police to initiate proceedings against him to keep him under suspension. The Superintendent of Police also submits that there was absolutely no negligence on the part of the appellant, and he was not responsible for the laps on the part of the SHO. He states that the SHO, having regard to the nature of complaint dated 23.12.2013, involving about 24-25 thousand rupees thought, at the relevant time, the dispute was of civil nature and hence, he simply filed it.

In view thereof, we have perused the order as well as the other record placed before us. We have also perused the complaint. Having regard thereto and having heard learned counsel for the parties and the Superintendent of Police, who is present in the Court, we are inclined to set aside the direction issued to the Superintendent of Police to initiate proceedings against the appellant - K.M. Satish, Police Inspector of Brahmpur Police Station, to keep him under suspension. Order accordingly.

If the Superintendent of Police has taken any action in pursuance of the impugned order against the appellant, we direct him to reinstate the appellant forthwith and not to initiate any proceedings against him as per the order dated 18.09.2014. Rest of the order dated 18.09.2014 remains unaltered. The observations/remarks made in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order dated 18.09.2014 against the appellant also are expunged. We hope and trust that the Superintendent of Police shall take appropriate steps/action to avoid such instances in future.

The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Before we part, we observe that all police personnel, attached to different police stations, should be more careful in handling the complaints received from citizens at large and see to it, by their conduct, the faith and trust, the citizens suppose to have in police, is maintained/restored and enhanced.