IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
B. VEERAPPA, N.S.SANJAY GOWDA, JJ.
SRI BASAVARAJ SHIVAPPA MUTTAGI, S/O SHIVAPPA MUTTAGI - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - Respondent
WRIT PETITION No.51012/2019, WRIT PETITION Nos.52575/2019, 15828/2021, 16081/2021, 16088/2021
IN WP 51012/2019
Decided On : 16-10-2021
Delhi Police Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - Section 6 - Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 – Section 313 –Indian penal Code,1860 - Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 302, 201 r/w Section 149 - Constitution of India ,1950 - Articles 226 and 227 – Offence of Murder - Conspiracy - Premeditated intention - FIR be came to be registered with Sub-Urban Police Station in pursuance to an information preferred by one wherein it was alleged that her husband - Deceased was actually involved in politics and due to his political activities deceased had prior to days from the date of incident received an anonymous letter threatening him that he would be murdered just like his elder brother - It is further alleged that the deceased had around criminal cases pending in five Police Stations which includes six murder cases - Further he is also listed as Rowdy in Rural and other Police Stations and there were criminal cases in Rural Police Station criminal cases in Police Station one criminal case in Police Station criminal cases in New Town Police Station and four criminal cases in City Police Station for various offences registered against him –
Finding of the court : On meticulous consideration of all pleadings objections and the arguments advanced by learned Counsel for parties as well as material on record it clearly depicts that local investigating officers have not conducted investigation in a fair and proper manner to both victim as well as accused persons thereby some of accused persons have been shielded to escape from clutches of law and the subsequent supplementary charge sheets filed clearly illustrates that very investigating officers – Accused have colluded with accused persons by receiving gratification in order to dilute the investigation and there are abundant material on record and overt acts against said accused persons - Now matter is being posted for further trial and accused persons have to face trial - Petitioners-accused have not made out a case as to how they are prejudiced by facing trial - Ultimately after trial truth always prevails and hence no injustice would be caused to accused persons in facing trial –
Result : Petition disposed off
ORDER :
(i) Writ Petition No.51012/2019 is filed by Accused No.1 -Basavaraj Shivappa Muttagi;
(ii) Writ Petition No.52575/2019 is filed by Accused No. 5 -Vinayak;
(iii) Writ Petition No.15828/21 is filed by Accused No.15 -Vinay Kulkarni;
(iv) Writ Petition No.16088/21 is filed by Accused No.16 -Chandrashekar Indi; and
(v) Writ Petition No.16081/21 is filed by Accused No.21 -Somashekar.
I -Facts of the case
2. This is a classic case where the political parties and the Police authorities have tried to misuse their power to bury the truth in respect of an unnatural death of one Yogishgouda goudar.
3. These writ petitions are filed by the accused persons stated supra under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India r/w Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the Government Order dated 6.9.2019 made in HD 48 PCB 2016 as per Annexure-A, according sanction to the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’ for short), under Section -6 of Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, to conduct further investigation with respect to Crime No.135/2016, registered with the Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station, Dharwad for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the FIR dated 24.6.2019 bearing No.RC 17(S)/2019/CBI/ACB/BLR as per Annexure -B.
4. The genesis of the present case lies in FIR bearing No.135/2016, which came to be registered with the Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station in pursuance to an information dated 15.6.2016, preferred by one Smt. Mallavva w/o Yogishgouda Goudar, wherein it was alleged that her husband i.e., deceased was actually involved in politics and due to his political activities, the deceased Yogishgouda Goudar had prior to 2 days from the date of incident, received an anonymous letter threatening him that, he would be murdered just like his elder brother -late Sri Udaygowd Gowdar. It is further alleged that the deceased Yogishgouda Goudar had around 25 criminal cases pending in five Police Stations, which includes six murder cases. Further, he is also listed as ‘Rowdy’ in Dharwad Rural and other Police Stations and there were 12 criminal cases in Dharwad Rural Police Station, 6 criminal cases in Navalgund Police Station, one criminal case in Garaga Police Station, 2 criminal cases in Dharwad New Town Police Station and four criminal cases in Dharwad City Police Station for various offences registered against him.
5. It was further alleged that the deceased Yogishgouda Goudar had ignored threatening letter and had been going on with his day to day affairs, which included attending Gym at 7.30 am in the morning. It was further alleged that on 15.6.2016, when the deceased Yogishgouda Goudar, had proceeded to Gym, and when he was about to enter the Gym, some unknown persons had assaulted him with weapons and caused his death. On such allegation, the Dharwad Sub-Urban Police had registered the information dated 15.6.2016, as FIR No.135/2016 against unknown persons for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. After investigation, the Police filed the charge sheet against six accused persons for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 120B, 302, 201 r/w Section 149 of IPC and advanced the prosecution theory that, the petitioners/accused persons and the deceased Yogishgouda Goudar, were known to each other and were politically connected from rival parties. It was further alleged by the police that, the Accused No.1 (petitioner in W.P. No.51012/2019) had entered into an agreement to purchase the lands to an extent of 25 acres 08 guntas in Belligatti village. It was further alleged that, at that time, the deceased had interfered and threatened the Accused No.1 that, in the event of him purchasing the said lands, he would kill the Accused No.1. It was further alleged that on such premise, the Accused No.1 had entered into a conspiracy with Accused Nos.2 to 6 and on 15.6.2016, with a premeditated intent
Vinay Tyagi vs. Irshad Ali and others reported in (2013)5 SCC 762
T.T. Anthony vs. State of Kerala and others reported in (2001) 6 SCC 181
State of Tamil Nadu vs. State of Kerala and Another reported in (2014) 12 SCC 696
P. Sambamurthy and Others vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another reported in (1987) 1 SCC 362
State of Punjab Vs. Bhag Singh reported in (2004) 1 SCC 547
State of West Bengal and Others vs. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights
Kalabharati Advertising vs. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania and Others reported in (2010) 9 SCC 437
Vinubhai Haribhai Malaviya and Others vs. State of Gujarat and Another reported in (2019) 17 SCC 1
State of Bihar vs. J.A.C. Saldanha reported in (1980) 1 SCC 554
State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar and Others reported in (2011) 14 SCC 770
Pritam Singh and Another vs. The State of Punjab reported in AIR 1956 SC 415
Bhagat Ram vs. State of Rajasthan, (1972) 2 SCC 466
State of Rajasthan Vs. Ram Swaroop (1972) 2 SCC 466
Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another reported in (2000) 6 SCC 359
Union of India vs. K.M. Shankarappa reported in (2001) 1 SCC 582
State of Tamilandu vs. State of Kerala and Another reported in (2014) 12 SCC 696
Suganthi Suresh Kumar vs. Jagadeeshan reported in (2002) 2 SCC 420
M. Mahendra Kumar vs. M. Mani and Others reported in (2015) 11 SCC 519
Athul Rao vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2018) 14 SCC 298
Sudipta Lenka vs. State of Odisha reported in (2014) 11 SCC 527
Hardeep Singh vs. State of Pubjab reported in (2014) 3 SCC 92
M. Balakrishna Reddy vs. CBI reported in (2008) 4 SCC 409
H.R. Rishbud vs. State of Delhi reported in (1955) 1 SCR 1150 : AIR 1955 SC 196 : 1955 Cri LJ 526
Sailendra Nath Bose vs. State of Bihar reported in (1968) 3 SCR 563 : AIR 1968 SC 1292
Fertico Marketing & Investment (P) Ltd. vs. CBI reported in (2021) 2 SCC 525
Ram Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar reported in (2009) 6 SCC 346
Ramesh Chandra Sankla vs. Vikram Cement reported in (2008) 14 SCC 58
Shiv Shankar Dal Mills vs. State of Haryana reported in (1980) 2 SCC 437 : (1980) 1 SCR 1170
CBI vs. Rajesh Gandhi reported in (1996) 11 SCC 253
Rubabbuddin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2010) 2 SCC 200
R.S. Sodhi vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in 1994 Supp.(1) SCC 143 : 1994 SCC (Cri) 248
Fertico Mktg & Investment (P) Ltd. vs. CBI reported in (2021) 2 SCC 525 : 2015 SCC OnLine All 5339
Rama Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar reported in (2009) 6 SCC 346 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 1059
Pradeep Ram vs. State of Jharkhand
Anukul Chandra Pradhan v. Union of India
State of Gujarat vs. Shantilal Mangaldas (1969) 1 SCC 509 : (1969) 3 SCR 341
Patna Improvement Trust v. Smt Lakshmi Devi, AIR 1963 SC 1077 : 1963 Supp 2 SCR 812
State of Rajasthan v. Union of (1977) 3 SCC 592
S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) 3 SCC 1
Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India (2006) 7 SCC 1
Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973) 4 SCC 225
L. Chandra Kumar v. Union of India (1997) 3 SCC 261 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 577
Satishkumar Nyalchand Shah v. State of Gujarat
Narender G. Goel v. State of Maharashtra
Dinubhai Boghabhai Solanki v. State of Gujarat
R.A.H. Siguran v. Shankare Gowda
Ganga Dhar Kalita v. State of Assam reported in (2015) 9 SCC 647
Rishipal Singh v. State of U.P.
Narmada Bai v. State of Gujarat
Vineet Narain v. Union of India (1996) 2 SCC 199 : 1996 SCC (Cri) 264
Union of India v. Sushil Kumar Modi (1998) 8 SCC 661 : 1999 SCC (Cri) 84
Rajiv Ranjan Singh ‘Lalan’ (8) v. Union of India (2006) 6 SCC 613 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 125
Hari Singh v. State of U.P. (2006) 5 SCC 733 : (2006) 3 SCC (Cri) 63
Aleque Padamsee v. Union of India (2007) 6 SCC 171 : (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 1
M.C. Mehta v. Union of India (2008) 1 SCC 407 : (2008) 1 SCC (Cri) 216
Ramesh Kumari v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2006) 2 SCC 677 : (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 678
Gudalure M.J. Cherian v. Union of India (1992) 1 SCC 397
Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Assn. v. State of Punjab
M. BALAKRIHNA REDDY vs. DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATON
Munnalal v. State of Uttar Pradesh
K. Chandrasekhar v. State of Kerala (1998) 5 SCC 223 : 1998 SCC (Cri) 1291
Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab
Shatrughan Chauhan v. Union of India
Navneet Kaur v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Santa Singh v. State of Punjab
Hasanbhai Valibhai Quereshi vs. State of Gujarat reported in (2004) 5 SCC 347
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.