AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J.—As on 20.12.2011, the 1st petitioner was the Police Inspector and the 2nd petitioner was the Sub-Inspector of Police at Sampigehalli Police Station, Bangalore. A case in Crime No. 209/2011, under S. 384 of IPC was registered at 11.00 a.m., on 20.12.2011, by the 2nd petitioner, on the complaint of one Karthik, son of Gopalkrishna, alleging stealing of his personal belongings by four unknown persons, near Petrol Bunk, on 80 feet road, Shivarama Karanth Nagar, Bangalore and the investigation revealing the complicity of the 3rd respondent, along with three others. The 1st respondent having received a phone call at 12.00 noon, on 20th December 2011, from the public, stating that 16 years old boy was rounded up and kept in Sampigehalli Police Station from the evening of 17th December 2011, a team from the 1st respondent Commission reached Sampigehalli Police Station at about 3.00 p.m., and found the 3rd respondent seated on a blanket and handcuffed with a leading chain attached to the bars of a window. His version was that, he having been picked up by the Police on 17.12.2011 at 9.30 p.m., on the road near his home at Sadiq Layout, Thanisandra and was subjected to torture by the Police. Father of the 3rd respondent submitted a written complaint along with the school transfer certificate of the 3rd respondent, which showed his date of birth as 10.01.1996. Photograph of the 3rd respondent, while he was in custody at Sampigehalli Police Station was taken. The 3rd respondent was later on produced before the Juvenile Justice Board and having been referred to remand home, was lodged therein. He was produced before a Medical Officer on 21.12.2011.
The 1st respondent passed an interim order on 21.12.2011 in the matter of assault committed on the 3rd respondent at Sampigehalli Police Station and recommended to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City, to initiate departmental enquiry for illegal detention and atrocity committed on the 3rd respondent at Sampigehalli Police Station and to immediately suspend the SHO, until the enquiry is completed and to submit a report by the Commissioner of Police about action taken. The 2nd respondent immediately conducted an enquiry, pursuant to the complaint of father of the 3rd respondent, alleging police excesses on the 3rd respondent during his custody at Sampigehalli Police Station. The 2nd respondent submitted a report, stating that the allegations of police excesses are unfounded and that the Sampigehalli Police have not committed any illegality.
The 1st respondent having passed a final order in the matter on 18.06.2012 and forwarded the same to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City, for taking of action and submitting of action taken report within 30 days on its receipt and having made certain recommendations, feeling aggrieved, this writ petition was filed, seeking various reliefs.
Respondents 1 to 3 have filed separate statement of objections to the writ petition and the petitioners have filed their re-joinder statement. The 4th respondent was impleaded, pursuant to an order passed on 14.12.2013.
Sri K.V. Narasimhan, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted that a criminal case in pursuance of the recommendation of the 1st respondent having been filed against the petitioners and since the petitioners can defend themselves before the criminal Court, wherein a case has been registered with regard to the alleged excesses by the officers of Sampigehalli Police Station on the 3rd respondent, challenge in this writ petition is confined "to the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- ordered to be paid as compensation to the 3rd respondent and its recovery from the petitioners and also that the petitioners should give a letter of apology to the 3rd respondent and his family members for the alleged trauma caused to them". Learned counsel contended that the impugned order to the said extent is ultra vires the provisions under Ss. 13 and 15 of the Commissions for Protection of Child Rights Act, 2005. He submitted that the 1st respondent has no power/authority to pass the order to the extent impugned in this writ petition. Learned counsel submitted that the 1st respondent while passing the impugned order has not taken into consideration the enquiry conducted by the 2nd respondent pursuant to the interim order passed on 21.12.2011 and that the impugned order having been passed without providing any kind of opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, there is violation of principles of natural justice and hence, is unsustainable.
Sri H.T. Vasanth Kumar, learned advocate contended that the 1st respondent having conducted a serious enquiry and verified the documents relating to the case and the 3rd respondent-a minor, having been illegally detained, brutally assaulted and tortured and there being violation of fundamental rights and in contravention of laws enacted to protect the rights of the children, the order dated 18.06.2012 (Annexure-M) was passed and recommendation was made to the Commissioner of Police to take immediate action and submit action taken report. He submitted that the order at Annexure-M does not warrant any interference.
Learned advocate for the 3rd respondent by referring to the statement of objections filed on 13.12.2012 submitted that the action of the petitioners against the 3rd respondent being in complete violation of laws enacted to protect the rights of the children and also the fundamental rights of the 3rd respondent, the 1st respondent is justified in passing the order dated 18.06.2012 and informing the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore to comply with the recommendation and submit action taken report. Learned counsel submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, no interference in the matter is warranted.
Learned AGA appearing for the respondents 2 and 4 submitted that in pursuance of the recommendations of the 1st respondent, a criminal case having been registered against the petitioners and since they have to face prosecution, the recommendations made to the extent of payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the 3rd respondent and for its recovery from the petitioners and to get a letter of apology from them to the 3rd respondent and his family members is unjustified. Learned counsel submitted that taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, an appropriate order, not affecting the lawful rights of either of the parties maybe passed.
Perused the writ record.
The 1st respondent while passing the final order in Case No. KSCPCR:Comp:351/2011-12, dated 18.06.2012, has made the following recommendations:
I. Commissioner of Police, Bangalore
a. The officials of the Sampigehalli Police Station, including the Police Inspector, Shri K. Nanjunde Gowda, the Police Sub-Inspector are guilty of violating the fundamental and protected rights of the minor boy. No compensation can remedy and erase the physical, mental and life-long psychological trauma caused to the boy and his family. However, it is only just and necessary that the officials of the Sampigehalli Police Station responsible for such trauma compensate the minor boy and his family for the damage sustained. An amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the minor boy, and the same be recovered from the Police Inspector, Shri K. Nanjunde Gowda and Sub-Inspector, Shri Nagaraj of Sampigehalli Police Station.
b. The Police Inspector, Shri K. Nanjunde Gowda and Sub-Inspector Shri Nagaraj of the Sampigehalli Police Station give a letter of apology to the minor boy and his family for the trauma caused to them.
c. On the basis of the complaint made by Shri Dastagi, the father of the minor boy, a criminal case must be registered against the erring officials Police Inspector, Shri K. Nanjunde Gowda and Sub-Inspector, Shri Nagaraj and an independent investigation be conducted and penal action be taken against them.
d. Henceforth, when complaints of harassment and torture are made against police officials in cases relating to the arrest and detention of juveniles, it is essential that a criminal case be registered against the erring officials and an independent investigation be conducted in to the same. Merely conducting in-house enquires of recording statements of police officials, without even considering the complaint or enquiring with the complainant, would quite naturally gives the police official a clean chit. The failure to take any action against police officials who have disregarded the law fails to act as a deterrent to such violations and in fact encourages the continuing of such violations. Circular to this effect to be issued by the Director General of Police, Karnataka State at the very earliest to all police stations in the state.
e. It is seen that juveniles are accompanied by police officials when taken to procure a medical report prior to production before the Juvenile Justice Board. The very presence of the abusers is known to intimidate and scare the minors and prevents them from openly disclosing the injuries suffered by them to the medical officers. Further, influenced by the accompanying police officer, the medical officer does not always record the diagnosis completely.
f. It is therefore necessary that juveniles be accompanied by independent persons including their parents when taken to hospital for a medical checkups in order to ensure that they are able to speak freely and without fear. A circular to this effect to be issued by the Director General of Police, Karnataka State at the very earliest to all police stations in the state Commissioner of Police, Bangalore to comply with recommendations and action taken report to be submitted within 30 days of the receipt of this order.
II. Director General of Police, Karnataka to recalculate circular given below to all police stations in the State.
Circular No: CRM/144/MISC-2/2010 dated 6/8/2010 issued by the Office of the Director General & Inspector General of Police, Karnataka State warned policemen against assaulting children in police stations and announces a district level rewards for best Women and Child friendly police stations needs to be re-circulated to all 906 police station in the state.
(underlining is by me)
The challenge in this writ petition has now been confined only to the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable to the 3rd respondent and its recovery from the petitioners and the giving of a letter of apology by the petitioners to the 3rd respondent and his family members for the alleged trauma caused to them.
After the writ petition was filed and hearing commenced, a criminal case has been registered by the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore, against the petitioners, based on the order dated 18.06.2012 of the 1st respondent. Since the 1st respondent recommended for registration of a criminal case based on the complaint of the father of the 3rd respondent, against the petitioners, for an independent investigation and taking of penal action against them and a criminal case having been filed, unless the petitioners are found guilty and convicted by the Court, they cannot be directed, either to give a letter of apology to the 3rd respondent and his family members or to pay the compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the alleged police excesses. The petitioners having not been extended with an opportunity of hearing by the 1st respondent and even otherwise, the 1st respondent having no adjudication powers, there would be denial of reasonable opportunity to the petitioners, in case, the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore, directs them to give a letter of apology to the 3rd respondent and his family members or to pay the quantified compensation. It is only the after trial and in the event of conviction of the petitioners, they can be directed to pay the compensation as may be quantified and not otherwise. If the said recommendation of the 1st respondent made against the petitioners is acted upon, the petitioners'' defence to the criminal case would be taken away. Hence, to the aforesaid extent, the 1st respondent has exceeded the jurisdiction. Since the 1st respondent has prima facie found that there was excesses against the 3rd respondent in Sampigehalli Police Station and as a criminal case has now been registered against the petitioners, who were in charge of Sampigehalli Police Station at the relevant point of time, the 4th respondent-the State Government, shall pay the interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the 3rd respondent, for the alleged illegal detention and the police excesses. In the event of conviction of the petitioners by the criminal Court, it is open to the criminal Court, to direct payment of appropriate compensation. If the petitioners are held guilty and sentenced by the criminal Court, the interim compensation amount, as above, shall be liable to be recovered from the petitioners.
In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part. The recommendations of the 1st respondent to the Commissioner of Police, for payment of compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- to the 3rd respondent and its recovery from the petitioners and also to obtain a letter of apology from the petitioners for being given to the 3rd respondent and his family members is hereby quashed. The criminal case registered against the petitioners shall proceed further in accordance with law. The defence of the petitioners is kept open.
For the present, the State Government shall pay to the 3rd respondent, a sum of Rs. 25,000/- as interim compensation. The time for making payment is three months from the date a copy of this order becomes available to the 4th respondent.
Writ petition is disposed of accordingly, with no orders as to cost.