Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by Kum. Deepika, appearing in person, seeking to quash the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.6 in C.Misc.No.674/2020 by the VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, DK, Mangaluru, and for directions to transfer the investigation in Crime No.82/2020 to the Crime Investigation Department (COD) and to initiate action against certain police officers. The petitioner alleged that in August 2020 she had lodged a theft complaint regarding a stolen laptop at Chamarajpet Police Station, registered as Crime No.80/2020. Respondent No.6, a Sub-Inspector of Police initially investigating that case, collected her phone number and under the pretext of investigation began calling and messaging her, sought financial assistance of Rs.12 lakhs which she refused, and then professed love which she did not encourage. Subsequently, on 8 November 2020, he forced her to meet him, took her to his house, and despite her resistance had forcible sexual intercourse with her, promising marriage. He then planned a marriage trip to Dharmastala, and on 10 November 2020, after reaching Dharmastala, he again had forcible sexual intercourse in a lodge room against her wish, thereby committing rape. Later, at the temple, he disclosed that he was already married. The petitioner approached the Dharmastala Police Station where she was allegedly subjected to threats and abuse by the police personnel, including Inspector Sandesh and others, who slapped, kicked, and assaulted her with a rifle and lathi, and forced her to sign blank papers. They also allegedly destroyed evidence and filed a false case against the petitioner under Section 389 IPC (Crime No.81/2020). The petitioner complained to various higher authorities, including the Inspector General of Police, Chief Minister, Home Minister, and State Police Complaint Authority, but no action was taken. Respondent No.6 sought and obtained anticipatory bail on 9 December 2020 from the Sessions Court. The petitioner contended that the accused, being a police officer, would tamper with evidence and threaten her if released on bail, and that the local police could not conduct a fair investigation due to complicity, hence the bail should be quashed and the case transferred to the COD. The matter was heard by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, presided over by Justice H.P. Sandesh, on 5 April 2021 and reserved for orders. The judgment was pronounced on 24 May 2021, but the operative portion of the order is not available in the extracted text, and thus the final decision remains unstated.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.6 in C.Misc.No.674/2020 should be quashed and whether the investigation in Crime No.82/2020 should be transferred to COD; and whether directions should be issued for action against police officials for alleged misconduct.
Case Details
2021 LawText (KAR) (05) 2
Writ Petition No.2910/2021(GM-RES)
Smt. Deepika, Party-in-person; Namitha Mahesh B.G., HCGP for R1 to R5; Sandesh J. Chouta, Senior Counsel for Tejas N., Advocate for R6
State of Karnataka, The Principal Secretary Home Department, Director General of Police, State Police Complaint Authority, Inspector General of Police, Sri Vishwanth Biradar, The Police Commissioner Bengaluru City
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution and Section 482 CrPC seeking to quash anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.6 and to transfer investigation to COD, and to initiate action against police officers for misconduct.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner (victim) seeking quashing of anticipatory bail of accused (respondent no.6) and directions to refer the crime to COD, and action against police officers who allegedly harassed and assaulted her.
Filing Reason
The petitioner alleges that respondent no.6, a police officer, committed rape on the pretext of marriage and later, with help of other police, got anticipatory bail, tampered evidence, and filed a false case against her. Police also assaulted and harassed her, hence she seeks justice.
Previous Decisions
Anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.6 by VI Additional District and Sessions Judge, DK, Mangaluru in C.Misc.No.674/2020 dated 09.12.2020. Petitioner seeks to quash that order.
Issues
Whether the anticipatory bail granted to respondent no.6 should be quashed?
Whether the investigation should be transferred to COD?
Whether action should be initiated against police officials for misconduct against the petitioner?
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that respondent No.6 committed rape on the false promise of marriage and that the police helped him get anticipatory bail.
She contended that the police at Dharmastala assaulted her and forced her to give statements, and that they filed a false case against her.
She submitted that if respondent No.6 is on bail, he would tamper with evidence and threaten her, hence the bail should be quashed.
She argued that no fair investigation is possible by the same police station, hence the case should be transferred to COD.
Judgment Excerpts
He sought for financial assistance of Rs.12 lakhs from the petitioner which she refused. Then he expressed that he is in love with her which she did not encourage.
respondent No.6 had sexual intercourse with her against her wish and committed rape on her.
the police authorities helped respondent No.6 to destroy the documentary evidence like lodge bills, medical evidence etc., harassed the petitioner and assaulted the petitioner by hand and lathi and rifle.
It is also contended that the police authorities helped respondent No.6 to go scot- free and also filed a false complaint against the petitioner.
Procedural History
The petitioner lodged a theft complaint with Chamarajpet Police Station (Crime No.80/2020) and respondent No.6 was investigating. On 08.11.2020, respondent No.6 allegedly raped her at his house and on 10.11.2020 again raped her at Dharmastala. Petitioner lodged complaint at Dharmastala P.S. leading to Crime No.82/2020 under Sections 323 and 376 IPC. Respondent No.6 filed a cross-complaint resulting in Crime No.81/2020 under Section 389 IPC. Petitioner complained of police assault and harassment to higher authorities. Respondent No.6 obtained anticipatory bail in C.Misc.No.674/2020 from the Sessions Court on 09.12.2020. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking quashing of that bail and other reliefs. The matter was heard on 05.04.2021 and reserved for orders; the judgment was pronounced on 24.05.2021, but the operative part is not available in the extracted text.
Acts & Sections
- Indian Penal Code, 1860: 323, 376, 389
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
- Constitution of India: Articles 226 and 227
