These writ appeals are arising out of the judgement

dated 08.06.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.102739/2016

C/w. W.P.No.103078/2016. Since these two appeals are

4

arising from the common judgement, both the appeals are

taken up together for hearing.

Heard Sri. Nandish Patil, learned counsel

appearing for appellant in W.A.No.100538/2017 and

Smt. Anuradha Deshpande, learned counsel appearing for

appellant

in

W.A.No.100544/2017

and

Sri.

G.K.

Hiregowdar, learned Government Advocate appearing for

respondents No.1 and 2 and Sri. K.L.Patil, learned counsel

appearing for respondent No.3 in the above said appeals.

Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the

case can be summarized as under :-

4.

One

Faruq

Mohammad

Chaus

filed

W.P.No.108515/2015 with a prayer to quash Modus

Operandi Bureau (MOB) Card bearing No.DCRBMOB

No.2554. The said petition was allowed in terms of the

order dated 11.02.2016 with a direction to the police to

remove the name of the petitioner from MOB card within

six days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the

order. At the same time, the learned Single Judge passed

5

an order to initiate proceeding against two police officers

who are the appellants in this appeal. Admittedly, these

polices officers were not parties in the said proceeding.

Aggrieved by the reference made to them in the said order

where they are not parties, the present appellants filed

W.P.No.102739/2016

C/w.

W.P.No.103078/2016

respectively with a prayer to quash the order dated

11.02.2016 passed in W.P.No.108515/2015.

5.

The learned Single Judge declined to entertain

the writ petition on the premise that in the earlier

proceeding no adverse findings are given against the

present appellants. At the same time the learned Single

Judge took note of the fact that police have conducted

enquiry pursuant to the direction given in terms of the

order dated 11.02.2016 in W.P.No.108515/2015. The said

report submitted by the Superintended of police, Belagavi

gave clean chit to the present appellants. However, the

learned Single Judge found that investigation is not

objective and has set-aside the report on the ground that

6

proper investigation is not conducted. Having rejected the

report the learned Single Judge directed the jurisdictional

Magistrate to take up the complaint filed by Faruq

Mohammad Chaus which is marked at Annexure-C to the

Writ Petition No.108515/2015 and to proceed on the said

complaint in accordance with law. With these observations

writ petition No.102739/2016 C/w. W.P.No.103078/2016

are disposed off. Aggrieved by the said order present writ

appeals are filed by the appellants.

6.

Sri.

Nandish

Patil

and

Smt.

Anuradha

Deshpande learned counsel appearing for appellants

would submit that the learned Single Judge could not have

set-side the report dated 20.06.2016 submitted by the

Superintended of police, Belagavi. They would submit that

there is no challenge to the said report in the writ petition

and scope of the enquiry in the writ petition was to see

whether the learned Single Judge is justified in passing

remarks against the petitioners, though the petitioners

were not parties in W.P.No.108515/2015. Elaborating

7

their submission, they would contend that the learned

Single Judge could not have passed an order and setting-

aside investigation report when it was not challenged.

Accordingly, they prayed to allow the appeal.

7.

Defending the order of the learned Single

Judge, Sri. K.L. Patil, learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.3 raised preliminary objection relating to

the maintainability of the appeal and he would submit that

the order in the appeal is passed in exercise the power

conferred under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and as such

appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act is

not maintainable. The learned counsel for the respondent

No.3 would urge that impugned order is not passed in

exercise of original jurisdiction and same is passed in

exercise of the supervisory jur