IN THE COURT 8th ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT AT BENGALURU

PCR NO.______/2021

Serial No……….. District Party- 1. Mr. ADARSH R IYER, in- #508/A/20, I Floor, Person Between: 7th Main, 5th Cross, Adarsh R Iyer , And: Bangalore - 560086. Kamal Pant & Ors. Mobile No: 8861414896. Email ID: [email protected]

Sl. Description of Paper Court Fee Affixed on the paper No. Presented 1. Memorandum of PCR u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for offences under IPC Act, Annexures and Verifying Affidavits. Total

Number of Copies Furnished Other side served Presented by

Party in Person(s) Received Paper with Court Fees as Above Advocate’s Clerk

Bangalore Date: 06-Apr-2021 Receiving clerk

IN THE COURT 8th ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT AT BENGALURU

PCR NO.______/2021

BETWEEN: ADARSH R IYER .....Complainant

AND: KAMAL PANT & ORS. ....Accused

INDEX

Sl. Description Pages Nos.

01 Memorandum of PCR u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for offences 01-26 under IPC, 1860.

02 Annexure “A” - Photocopy of the Complaint/Information 27-36 filed by the Complainants to the Accused 3, the Inspector of Police of PS, with Ref. No: JSP/COMPT/CPPS/RJCD/001/2021 dated 17.03.2021 with enclosures and RPAD.

03 Annexure “A-1” - Photocopy of the Email of the 37-41 Complaint/Information filed by the Complainants to the Accused 3, the Inspector of Police of Cubbon Park PS, with Ref. No: JSP/COMPT/CPPS/RJCD/001/2021 dated 17.03.2021 with attachment of the signed complaint.

04 Annexure “B” – Photocopy of the Complaint/Information 42-44 filed by the Complainants to the Accused 2, the DCP of Bangalore Central division of , with Ref. No: JSP/COMPT/CPPS/RJCD/002/2021 dated 01.04.2021 with enclosures.

05 Annexure “C” – Photocopy of the Endorsement of --45-- Accused No. 1 closing the information of offences as per Annexure “A”.

06 Annexure “D” – Photocopy of Complaint/Information of 46-47 offences by the Initial Complainant, Mr. Dinesh Kallahalli to Inspector of Police, Cubbon Park Police Station, Bangalore, dated 02/03/2021, received at 18:45

07 Annexure “E” – Photocopy of the purported withdrawal 48-52 of the Initial Complaint, apparently by the complainant Dinesh Kallahalli, through a letter, dated 07/03/2021

08 Annexure “F” – Photocopy of the Instruction Note with --53-- No: HLPALMO/542/2021, dated 09/03/2021 issued by the Home Minister, Government of to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City Police.

09 Annexure “G” – Photocopy of the Order issued by the 54-55 Department of Police, , dated 11/03/2021 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City Police with a copy to the DG & IGP, Karnataka .

10 Verifying Affidavit of the Complainant. --56--

Bangalore, Date: 06-04-2021 Petitioner in Person 1

IN THE COURT 8th ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT AT BENGALURU

PCR NO.______/2021

BETWEEN: SRI. ADARSH R IYER, S/O: N. RAMANATHA IYER, AGED ABOUT: 47 YRS, CO-PRESIDENT, JANAADHIKAARA SANGHARSHA PARISHATH (JSP), #508/A/20, 7TH MAIN, 5TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BANGALORE-560086. ….. COMPLAINANT (ORIGINAL COMPLAINANT) AND

1. SRI. KAMAL PANT, COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BANGALORE CITY POLICE, BANGALORE. ….. ACCUSED 1

2. SRI. ANUCHETH M N, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION, BANGALORE CITY POLICE, BANGALORE. ….. ACCUSED 2

3. SRI. MARUTHI B, THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CUBBON PARK PS, CUBBON PARK SUB-DIVISION, BANGALORE CENTRAL DIVISION, BANGALORE CITY POLICE, BANGALORE. ….. ACCUSED 3

MEMORANDUM OF APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 156 (3) OF

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE [CR.P.C], 1973

1). The Address of the Complainant for the purpose of issuance of Court Notice, Summons Etc., from this Hon’ble Court is as shown in the cause title. The Complainant may be permitted to appear in person and conduct the case.

2). About the Organization, JSP:- JSP is a registered Trust under Indian Trust Act. The Complainant has been working tirelessly as anti-corruption crusaders in the capacity of Office Bearers of Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath (hereinafter “JSP”), a non-governmental, non-profit organization. JSP is one of the initial complainants in the extortion case against the father-son duo of erstwhile

2

Lokayukta Bhaskar Rao and Ashwin Rao. Based on our complaint, Hon'ble Upalokayukta, Justice Subhash B Adi ordered an investigation and an FIR was filed by Smt. Sonia Narang against Ashwin Rao and his aides. Our organization has fought for saving lakes in and around Bangalore. Our organization has fought for rape victims, POCSO victims, admissions to schools under RTE (Right to Education) for poor and socially backward classes etc.. The Complainant has represented as party-in-person before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in Criminal Petitions 8057/2016 to 8078/2016 u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the 22 FIRs as original complainants/respondents; WP 6458/2018 and WP 32035/2019 against Mr. Hemant Nimbalkar, IPS, IGP for his involvement in IMA scam; before Hon’ble 3rd ACMM Court, Bangalore for rejection of bail of the accused; 1st ACMM Court u/s 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for obscene comments against Mahatma Gandhiji & Jawaharlal Nehru etc..

3). It is submitted that, the Complainant had filed an information/complaint of offences with the Station House officer of Cubbon Park PS [hereinafter referred to as “CPPS”] with Ref. No: JSP/COMPT/CPPS/RJCD/001/2021 dated 17.03.2021 [hereinafter referred to as Annexure “A”]. This Complaint was filed for serious cognizable offences u/s 166-A (cognizable offences) of Indian Penal Code, 1860 [IPC] against Mr. Kamal Pant, Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City Police; Mr. Anucheth M N, Deputy Commissioner of Police, Bangalore Central Division, Bangalore City Police and Mr. Maruthi B, the Inspector of Police, Cubbon Park PS, Bangalore City Police for failing to register FIR as they being public servants failed to register FIR for alleged offences of sexual intercourse by a person in authority such as the then Minister of Water Resources, Mr. Ramesh Jarkiholi on a complaint dated 02.03.2021 by one person named, Mr. Dinesh Kallahalli who claims to be the President of “£ÁUÀjÃPÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ ºÉÆÃgÁl ¸À«Äw”, thus failing to carry

3 out their duties in a disciplined manner, acting in a prejudiced manner against the said Complainant as well as the purported victim, displaying gross incompetence by buckling under the pressure of the powerful ruling political class, flouting laws of the land and Supreme Court of guidelines with impunity and bringing disrepute to the independent working of the Karnataka State Police Force. The Accused No. 3, the Inspector of Police, CPPS refused to receive the information/complaint of offences at Annexure “A” while the same was submitted and accepted by the Accused No. 1 and 2 and the DG & IGP of Karnataka State Police. Due to the refusal by the Accused No. 3 to accept Annexure “A”, an email was sent to the official Email ID of CPPS with a copy marked to Accused No. 1, 2 and DG&IGP [hereinafter referred to as Annexure “A-1”]. The information of offences at Annexure “A” was sent to the Accused No. 3 through Indian Postal Service - Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due (RPAD). Further, the said Information/complaint at Annexure “A” was submitted to the Deputy Commissioner of Police - Central Division of Bangalore City Police [hereinafter referred to as “DCP”] with Ref. No: JSP/COMPT/CPPS/RJCD/002/2021, dated 01.04.2021 in accordance with section 154(3) of Cr.P.C. [hereinafter referred to as Annexure “B”]. It is submitted that, as of today, the Inspector of CPPS has not registered an FIR even though our initial complaint discloses serious cognizable offences such as section 166-A of IPC, but has proceeded to close the above said complaint through an endorsement with £ÀA. PÀÆå1/¦J¸ï/¦Ln/¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå/70/2021, dated 30.03.2021 [hereinafter referred to as Annexure “C”] that reached the complainant on 03.04.2021 through speed post.

4). It is submitted that, one person named, Mr. Dinesh Kallahalli who claims to be the President of “£ÁUÀjÃPÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ ºÉÆÃgÁl ¸À«Äw” had filed an initial complaint [hereinafter

4 referred to as “Initial Complaint”] with the Inspector of Police [hereinafter referred to as “PI”], Cubbon Park Police Station [hereinafter referred to as “CPPS”] [hereinafter referred to as Annexure “D”] with Ref. No: £ÁºÀºÉÆøÀ/CP/CD/12/2021, dated 02/03/2021. A detailed and an in-depth perusal of the Initial Complaint reveals the fact of allegations of offences of sexual acts and sexual intercourse with a lady by the then Minister of Water Resources, Mr. Ramesh Jarkiholi so as to satisfy his sexual desires by exploiting his superior position as one of the Cabinet Ministers of Government of Karnataka which allegedly attracts offence u/s 376C of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and any other suitable offences. An extract of the Initial Complaint that makes out the above said offence reads as below:- “...¸ÀzÀj AiÀÄĪÀw QgÀÄavÀæ ¤ªÀiÁðtPÉÌAzÀÄ ¸ÀaªÀ ²æà gÀªÉÄñï eÁgÀQºÉƽ, gÀªÀgÀ §½ §AzÁUÀ ¤£ÀUÉ PÉ.¦.n.¹.J¯ï£À°è GzÉÆåÃUÀ PÉÆr¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹ DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä PÁªÀÄ vÀȵÉUÁV §¼À¹PÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ GzÉÆåÃUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀzÉ DPÉUÉ ªÀAa¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj AiÀÄĪÀw §½ vÀªÀÄä PÁªÀÄzÁlzÀ «rAiÉÆ EzÉ JAzÀÄ w½AiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝAvÉ DPÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DPÉAiÀÄ PÀÄlÄA§ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÉ fêÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ MrØgÀÄvÁÛgÉ...”.

5) It is submitted that, as the Initial Complaint disclosed serious cognizable offences u/s 376C of IPC and several other offences, the Inspector of Police of CPPS ought to have registered an FIR before proceeding further for investigation. Instead, the entire Karnataka State Police machinery was pressed into action of searching the whereabouts of the victim, thus violating the Amended Criminal Law of 2013 where the police were duty bound to record and register the information of offence under few sections of IPC such as 376 376C, 354, 354-B etc.. that relate to the offences against women and of course, in blatant violation of the orders passed by the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court of India in Lalita Kumari Vs Gov t of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1, where

5 the police is duty bound to register an FIR in case the complaint disclosed cognizable offence. It also violated several decisions of the High Court of Karnataka (Reportable Judgement in Criminal Petition No. 15941/2012 C/W 15852/2012, dated 05.02.2013, High Court of Karnataka and several others) which clearly postulate that any investigation without filing an FIR is invalid. But, the entire gamut of investigation was aimed at intimidating the initial complainant himself as he was summoned several times to the concerned police station on the pretext of investigation while the accused was never issued a notice to appear before the concerned police station for an enquiry/investigation, just because the accused was a powerful cabinet minister in the Government of Karnataka. This is nothing but a total rewriting of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) where the complainant is treated like an accused while the accused is treated as though he is the victim. On a perusal of the withdrawal [hereinafter referred to as Annexure “E”] of the said Initial Complaint by the said complainant, it is quite clear that he was under tremendous pressure due to several threats to him and questions raised against the victimised woman in the said Initial Complaint. If the reasons quoted by the complainant in the said withdrawal letter were not true, an FIR would have been filed by now against the then Cabinet Minister, Mr. Ramesh Jarkiholi and investigation would have proceeded. But, no FIR was filed against Mr. Ramesh Jarkiholi. Proceeding further, a letter is written to the Home Minister of the Government of Karnataka by Mr. Ramesh Jarkiholi, dated 09/03/2021 where he requests for the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of top officers to investigate against the Initial Complaint on a pretext of conspiracy to defame him and destroy his political career. Based on this letter by the accused, Mr. Ramesh Jarkiholi, the Home Minister proceeds to issue an Instruction Note with No:

6

HLPALMO/542/2021, dated 09/03/2021 [hereinafter referred to as Annexure “F”] to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City Police to form an SIT so as to investigate into the allegations made by the accused himself thus throwing all basic principles of criminal jurisprudence and principles of natural justice into the dustbin. An Order was immediately issued by the Department of Police, Government of Karnataka, dated 11/03/2021 [hereinafter referred to as Annexure “G”] signed by the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City Police with a copy to the DG & IGP, Karnataka State Police. Such a prejudiced and one-sided order issued by the Accused No. 1 – Mr. Kamal Pant is possible only if he carries a presumptuous assumption that a powerful Cabinet Minister can never be treated as an accused.

6). It is submitted that, the promptness with which the Home Minister and the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City Police acted upon the letter by the accused Mr. Ramesh Jarkiholi and formed an SIT of top officers of the Karnataka State Police as compared to non-registration of FIR and forcing the initial complainant to withdraw the Initial Complaint is unreasonable and illegal. Such blatant acts of violations of laws of the land exhibits gross abuse of power by the powerful ruling political class with the top brass of the Karnataka State Police machinery meekly surrendering to the whims and fancies of the political class to scuttle the investigation into the offences of sexual exploitation against the then Cabinet Minister. According to the various decisions of the Supreme Court of India (Anju Chaudhary Vs State of U.P., (2013) 6 SCC 384) and several High Courts, an accused has no right to be heard before filing an FIR against him. In this case, just because the accused is a powerful Cabinet Minister, he was not only heard, but the police machinery was misused to pressurise the initial complainant to withdraw the initial complaint and constitute

7 a SIT of top officers to investigate into the allegations of conspiracy to defame and harm politically, based on a letter by the accused powerful Cabinet Minister. This setting up of an SIT itself on the demand of an accused exhibits the fact that though India is a Democracy, such abuse of power, blatant violations of law, prejudiced actions against common man and in favour of a few powerful political class of people mark India as a Democracy only with elections and India is no longer a democracy but an ‘Electoral Autocracy’ as recently declared by a Swedish Institute called V Dem Institute.

7). It is submitted that, with the above in perspective, the concerned station police officers have utterly failed to carry out their duty in accordance with law as they have a bounden duty to register an FIR in case any information of alleged offences u/s 376C of IPC submitted to them. Mr. Maruti B, the Inspector of Police of Cubbon Park PS who has received the Initial Complaint at Annexure “D” has deliberately failed to record the information of offences submitted only to save the accused powerful cabinet minister, Mr. Ramesh Jarkiholi from punishment and embarrassment. This act of not recording an FIR and not acting as per the various guidelines provided to carry out an investigation in such a case attracts offences u/s 166-A of IPC, which was introduced through Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013, famously knows as Nirbhaya Act.

Section 166-A of IPC reads as follows:-

“166-A. Public Servant disobeying direction under law. -

Whoever, being a public servant—

(a) knowingly disobeys any direction of the law which prohibits him from requiring the attendance at any place of any person for the purpose of investigation into an offence or any other, or

8

(b) knowingly disobeys, to the prejudice of any person, any other direction of the law regulating the manner in which he shall conduct such investigation, or

(c) fails to record any information given to him under sub- section (1) of section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in relation to cognizable offence punishable under section 326A, section 326B, section 354, section 354B, section 370, section 370A, section 376, section 376A, section 376AB, section 376B, section 376C, section 376D, section 376DA, section 376DB, section 376E or section 509, shall be punished with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.”

With the above in perspective, the Accused No. 3, being an Inspector of a Police Station was obligated under section 166-A of IPC to NOT to fail to record any information given to him as in Annexure “C” in relation to cognizable offences such as 376C of IPC. But, he did not record the information and prepare First Information Report as per section 154(1) of CrPC, thus allegedly disobeying the direction of law as stipulated. As the Accused No. 3 failed to record information given to him in Annexure “C”, it is alleged that he is liable to attract offences u/s 166-A of IPC.

Further, as per Rule 224 of the Manual, Volume - I, Chapter VI, [hereinafter referred to as “KP Manual”] the Accused No. 1 who is the Inspector of Police of CPPS has the responsibility to investigate all heinous cases.

Rule 224 of the Karnataka Police Manual, Volume - I, Chapter VI reads as follows [Please refer to Page No. 76] :-

“INSPECTOR IN CHARGE OF POLICE STATION

224. In some important Police Stations, Inspectors of Police are appointed as S.H.Os. In such Police Stations, the Inspector of Police will supervise the work of the Police

9

Sub-Inspectors attached to his Police Station and investigate all heinous cases besides being responsible for the Police Administration of the Police stations. Such Inspectors in addition to performing the duties of Sub- Inspector of Police as Station House Officer hold a status equivalent to that of Inspector of Police in charge of a Circle and discharge duties and responsibilities equivalent to that of Circle Inspector of Police holding charge of a Circle so far as his station is concerned. The Inspectors holding charge as SHO will be reporting to the Sub Divisional Police Officer who will inspect their Police Stations and guide them as per the instructions in the aforesaid orders.”

With the above in perspective, it is crystal clear that the Accused No. 1, as the Inspector of Police of CPPS was responsible for the investigation of heinous offences such as 376C which carries a rigorous punishment of not less than 5 years, which may extend to ten years. Hence, the Accused No. 1 was the Police Officer at CPPS totally responsible for the investigation of the alleged heinous offence, beginning from the recording of the information submitted at Annexure “C” to the ensuing investigation in the said case. But, he utterly failed to even record the said information of offence at Annexure “C” that clearly and prima facie disclose offences u/s 376C of IPC because of which the Accused No. 3 is liable to attract offences u/s 166-A of IPC and hence this PCR.

Further, the reason provided by the Accused No. 3 in closing the information of offences against him and the other two is frivolous in nature, legally invalid and untenable. On the first hand, the Accused No. 3 investigating an information of offences against himself and closing it is filled with prejudice, bias and misuse of power as it violates the legal axiom of “Nemo judex in causa sua” meaning “No one is a judge in his own cause”. The Accused No. 3 should have recused himself from investigating information of offences

10 against himself. Further, even the reason provided in the endorsement at Annexure “C” in closing the information of offences at Annexure “A” is legally invalid and untenable. The Accused No. 3 gives the pretext of ‘conducting a preliminary enquiry’ as per Lalita Kumari case of Supreme Court of India. As per Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court of India can make any order only to enforce any lacunae in the existing laws until a provision is made in that behalf by the Parliament. Article 142 of the Constitution reads as follows:-

“142. Enforcement of decrees and orders of Supreme Court and unless as to discovery, etc ( 1 ) The Supreme Court in the exercise of its jurisdiction may pass such decree or make such order as is necessary for doing complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it, and any decree so passed or orders so made shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India in such manner as may be prescribed by or under any law made by Parliament and, until provision in that behalf is so made, in such manner as the President may by order prescribe

(2) Subject to the provisions of any law made in this behalf by Parliament, the Supreme Court shall, as respects the whole of the territory of India, have all and every power to make any order for the purpose of securing the attendance of any person, the discovery or production of any documents, or the investigation or punishment of any contempt of itself.”

After the horrific incident of Nirbhaya rape case in the month of December, 2012, a committee was formed under retired Chief Justice of India, Justice J.S.Verma and a report was submitted within a month in January, 2013 with recommendations of amendments to the Criminal Laws. Subsequent to the recommendations of the committee, the Parliament in its wisdom unanimously passed the Criminal Law of Amendments of 2013 through which section 166-A of

11

IPC has been inserted. Through this section, it has been made clear that any public servant who fails to record information of offences u/s 154(1) of Cr.P.C. for crimes related to 376, 376C, 354, 509 etc.. is liable to be punished with rigorous imprisonment of not less than 6 months which may extend to 2 years and with fine. When there exists a law passed by the Parliament on that specific issue which states that the information of offences has to be recorded for these offences without fail, then a failure to record such offence by the Accused No. 1, 2 and 3, for more than 20 days due to preliminary enquiry cannot be claimed to be legally valid and tenable.

8). It is submitted that, the news of this initial complaint was getting broadcasted in every print and TV media for the past fortnight and there was no reason to believe that the concerned DCP of Central Division or the Commissioner of Police of Bangalore City Police had no information with regards to the information of offences as per the Initial Complaint at Annexure “D”. In addition to the above, there is documentary evidence of these senior police officers getting informed of the said initial complaint due to the announcement of a SIT formed based on the Instruction Note by the Home Minister of Karnataka where this Instruction Note Annexure “F” clearly mentions the Initial Complaint dated 02/03/2021 filed at Cubbon Park PS. Further Order was issued by the Commissioner of Police of Bangalore City Police to constitute SIT with seven (7) top police officers like one IGP, one DIG, two DCPs, one ACP and two Inspectors of Police with a copy of the same submitted to the DG & IGP of Karnataka State Police and the Home Minister of Karnataka. So, even with documentary evidence like the Instruction Note Annexure “F”, Order by the Police Department itself to constitute an SIT Annexure “G”, top officers like the DCP of Central Division and Commissioner of Police of Bangalore City Police cannot wriggle out of their

12 duty to adhere to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013 where they were duty bound to get the information recorded in the form of an FIR against the Initial Complaint that clearly made out offences u/s 376C of IPC as they cannot claim that they are not aware of the initial complaint.

9). Section 36 of Cr.P.C., section 77 of Karnataka Police Act, 1964 and rule 183 of Karnataka Police Manual:- It is submitted that, the Accused Nos. 1 and 2 are superior ranked officers who derive power not only to record information of offences and register an FIR, but even exercise the same powers throughout the local area to which they are appointed as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station. This power is in accordance with section 36 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, section 77 of Karnataka Police Act, 1964 [hereinafter referred to as “KP Act”] and rule 183 of Karnataka Police Manual.

Section 36 of Cr.P.C. reads as follows:-

“36. Powers of superior officers of police—Police officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station”

Section 77 of Karnataka Police Act, 1964 reads as follows [Please refer to Page No. 77]:-

“77. A superior Police Officer may himself perform duties imposed on his inferior, etc.—A Police Officer of rank superior to that of a constable may perform any duty assigned by law or by a lawful order to any officer subordinate to him; and in case of any duty imposed on such subordinate, a superior where it shall appear to him necessary may aid, supplement, supersede or prevent any action of such subordinate by his own action or that of any person lawfully acting under his command or authority, whenever the same shall appear

13 necessary or expedient for giving more complete or convenient effect to the law or for avoiding an infringement thereof.”

Rule 183 of Karnataka Police Manual, Volume - I, Chapter V reads as follows [Please refer to Page No. 76]:-

“Superiors competent to perform duties of subordinates

183. (a) Under Section 77 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963, a superior Police Officer may take up any duty assigned to his subordinate whenever he considers it expedient to do so. This enables a Superintendent of Police or Sub-Divisional Police Officer in any case especially requiring it, to take up the duty of a Station House officer or assign it to another competent officer.

(b) Section 77 of the Karnataka Police Act, 1963 conforms to Section 36 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Under the former section, a Superintendent of Police or a Sub-Divisional Police Officer can order a Sub-Inspector of Police to send the charge sheet in a case to a Magistrate, even when the Sub-Inspector of Police has decided that there are no grounds to do so.

(c) The words “by his own action” in Section 77 of the Karnataka Police Act authorise the superior officer to exercise the powers provided for in the section even by correspondence and from a distance as it is not legally necessary that he should take local and personal action.”

This has been established in various citations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India such as R.P. Kapur and others Vs. Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon and others, 1961 AIR 1117 1961 SCR (2) 143 and State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. J.A.C. Saldanha and Ors., 1980 AIR 326; 1980 SCR (2) 16.

It is submitted that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held in R.P. Kapur and others Vs. Sardar Pratap Singh Kairon and others, 1961 AIR 1117 1961 SCR (2) 143 as follows [Please refer to Page No. 57]:-

14

“HEADNOTE:

One S sent a complaint against the first petitioner to the Chief Minister who sent it to the Additional Inspector- General of Police who in his turn sent it to the Deputy Superintendent of Police C.I.D., with the endorsement "Register a case and investigate personally ". The Deputy Superintendent of Police drew up a first information report. There were also three other cases instituted against the petitioners or some of them, which were being investigated into by the C.I.D. Police officers. The petitioners contended that the respondents had violated the provisions of ss. 154, 156 and 157 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and had adopted a procedure unknown to law and had thus singled out the petitioners for unequal treatment in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution.

Held, that the procedure adopted was authorised by S. 551 of the Code and in the first case the Inspector-General had power to deal with the complaint and to direct investigation of the same by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Even if the reason given for the Inspector-General making over the investigation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police that the case was of a technical nature was not correct, it was open to him to make over the investigation to the Deputy Superintendent of Police in view of the status of the petitioners. The procedure adopted in the other three cases was also not illegal, and there was no unequal treatment of the petitioners in the matter of the institution or investigation of the cases so as to entitle them to invoke in aid Art. 14 of the Constitution.”

[Please refer to Page No. 60]

“First of all, s. 154, Code of Criminal Procedure, does not say that an information of a cognizable offence can only be made to an officer in charge of a police station. That section merely lays down, inter alia, that every information relating to the commission of a cognizable

15 offence, if given orally to an officer in charge of a police station, shall be reduced to writing by him or under his direction, and be read over to the informant; and every such information shall be signed by the person giving it and the substance thereof shall be entered in a book to be kept by such officer in such form as the State Government may prescribe in that behalf.”

“Now, there is another important provision in the Code which is of great relevance in this case and must be read. That provision is contained in s. 551 which is in these terms :

"S. 551. Police officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed, as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station."

The Additional Inspector General of Police to whom Sethi’s complaint was sent was, without doubt, a police officer superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station. Sardar Hardayal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., Amritsar, was also an officer superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station. Both these officers could, therefore, exercise the powers, throughout the local area to which they were appointed, as might be exercised by an officer in charge of a police station within the limits of his police station. It is not disputed that the jurisdictional area of the Additional Inspector General of Police was the whole of the State. As to the jurisdictional area of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.I.D., the contention on behalf of the respondent State is that though he was posted at Amritsar, his jurisdictional area extended over the whole State.”

It is submitted that, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held in State of Bihar and Anr. Vs. J.A.C. Saldanha

16 and Ors., 1980 AIR 326; 1980 SCR (2) 16 as follows [Please refer to Page No. 65]:-

“HELD : 1. A combined reading of sections 2(h), 2(r), 36, 156 and 173(8) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 read with sections 1, 3, 12, and 22 of Indian Police Act, 1861 would indicate that the State Government was not precluded from directing further investigation in the case in which one investigating officer had submitted his ’final report’ under section 173(2) of the Code, but on which the Court had not passed any order. Section 156 enables the officer incharge of a Police Station to investigate without the order of a Magistrate into a cognizable case committed within the area of the police station. Under section 36 police officers superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station may exercise the same powers, throughout the local area to which they are appointed as may be exercised by such officer within the limits of his station. Section 173(8) enables an officer-in- charge of the Police Station to undertake for their investigation in a case where he has already submitted a report under sub- section (2) of section 173 and if in course of such further investigation he collects additional oral or documentary evidence, he has to forward the same in the prescribed form to the Magistrate. [27 G, 28 A, C-D, 32 G]

2. The officer directed by the State Government to carry on the investigation is Inspector General Vigilance. He is undoubtedly an officer superior in rank, may not be department wise administrative hierarchy, to an officer in charge of police station. Inter se departmental division such as Inspector General of Police or Inspector General Vigilance, Or Additional Inspector General C.I.D. may be merely a division of work for administrative efficiency but the Inspector General of Police could not by any stretch of imagination be said not to be an officer superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station. [28 D-F] Rule 7(a) of the Manual provides that the police force of the entire State is

17 under the overall charge of Inspector General of Police and for the help of Inspector General and for the convenience of carrying out the work connected with the different branches of police administration, Deputy Inspector General and Assistant Inspector-General of the rank of Superintendent are posted at headquarters. The use of the word ’rank’ in s. 36 of the Code comprehends the hierarchy of police officers. It is equally clear that Inspector General of Police will have jurisdiction over the whole of the State. Division of work, but not demarcating any local area indicates that Inspector General, Vigilance, will have jurisdiction extending over the whole of the State and this equally becomes clear from the Notification dated June 6, 1973, issued by the State Government in exercise of the power under clause (s) of subsection (1) of s. 4 of the 1908 Code declaring that in respect of certain offences the Vigilance Department shall be deemed to be a police station having its jurisdiction throughout the whole State of Bihar. Even apart from this, Inspector General appointed by the State Government has jurisdiction over the whole of the State unless the contrary is indicated. If he is thus an officer superior in rank to an officer in charge of a police station he could in view of s. 36 exercise the powers of an officer in charge of a police station throughout the local area to which he was appointed meaning thereby the whole of Bihar State as might be exercised by an officer in charge of a police station within the limits of his police station. It was to him that the investigation of the case was ordered to be handed over by the State Government. [28 G-H, 29 A-4]

R. P. Kapoor and Ors. v. Sardar Partap Singh Kairon and

Ors., [1961] 2 SCR 143 at 153-154; applied.

3. The State of Bihar is governed by the Indian Police Act, 1861. A combined reading of sections 1, 3, 12 and 22 of the Act makes it clear that (a) investigation comprehends

18 detection of crime; (b) General police district covers the entire State and (c) the superintendence of the police throughout a general-police district shall vest in and shall be exercised by the State Government to which such district is subordinate. Inspector General, Vigilance being appointed for the whole of the State, is a police officer considered to be on duty for all purposes of the Act and it is open to the State Government to employ him as police officer in any part of the general district. [29 F, 30 A-C]

4. The general power of superintendence as conferred by section 3 of the Police Act 1861 would comprehend the power to exercise effective control over the actions performance and discharge of duties by the members of the police force throughout the general district. The word ’superintendence’ would imply administrative control enabling the authority enjoying such power to give directions to the subordinate to discharge its administrative duties and functions in the manner indicated in the order. It is only when a subordinate authority subject to superintendence is discharging duties and functions of a quasi-judicial character under a statute that the inhibition of abdication of such power can be invoked. But where the subordinate subject to such power of superintendence of the superior is discharging administrative and executive function, obligations and duties the power of superintendence would comprehend the authority to give directions to perform the duty in a certain manner, to refrain from performing one of the other duty, to direct some one else to perform the duty and no inhibition or limitation can be read in this power unless the section conferring such power prescribes one. Such is the scope and ambit of power conferred by s. 3 on the State Government of superintendence over the entire police force of the State. [30 E-H]

Makeshwar Nath Srivastava v. State of Bihar & Ors. [1971] 3 S.C.R. 863 followed.

19

5. Unless the power is limited or fettered or taken away by some specific provision to the contrary, the general power of superintendence would comprehend power to issue directions, orders for performance of duty in a certain manner, directing some one else to discharge certain function, refrain from performing certain duty, etc. Superintendence connotes supervision which implies a hierarchy, viz. supervisor and the one supervised. It would, therefore, mean keeping a check, watch over the work of another who may be a subordinate in a hierarchy of authority. It would also comprehend that supervision is not merely a negative thing so as to keep a watch but it would imply giving of direction, guidance, even instructions, and in a given case and in a given situation asking one who is being supervised to forbear from doing a thing and directing someone else to do that thing. [31 G-H, 32 A-B]

Rajkumar v. Ramsundar A.I.R. 1932 P.C. 69, referred to.

6. Superintendence would comprehend the power to direct further investigation if the circumstances so warrant. There is nothing in the police Act to indicate the narrow construction of the word "superintendence" in section 3 to 20 mean ’general supervision’ of the management of the police department and does not vest the State Government with authority to decide what the police alone is authorised to decide. [32 D-E]

7. Sub-section (8) of section 173 of the Code is not the source of power of the State Government to direct further investigation. Section 173(8) enables an officer in charge of a police station to carry on further investigation even after a report under s. 173(2) is submitted to Court. But if State Government has otherwise power to direct further investigation it is neither curtailed, limited nor denied by s. 173(8) more so, when the State Government directs an officer superior in rank to an officer in charge of police station

20 thereby enjoying all powers of an officer in charge of a police station to further investigate the case. Such a situation would be covered by the combined reading of s. 173(8) with s. 36 of the Code. [32 F-H, 33 A]

8. There is no warrant or invoking the principle, namely "if a statute directs a thing to be done in a certain way that thing shall not, even if there be no negative words be done in any other way" because section 5 of the code provides that nothing in the code shall, in the absence of a specific provision to the contrary, affect any special or local law for the time being in force, or any special form of procedure prescribed, by any other law for the time being in force. Section 3 of the Police Act does not prescribe any special procedure for investigation contrary to one prescribed in the Code. It merely provides for conferment of certain power which, when exercised, would project into the provisions of the Code which confers power on the officer in charge of a police station to carry on further investigation under s. 173(8) after submission of a report and that too without any permission of the Magistrate. There is no conflict between the two provisions. Power to direct investigation or further investigation is entirely different from the method and procedure of investigation and the competence of the person to investigate. Section 3 of the Act deals with the powers of the State Government to direct further investigation into the case. Undoubtedly, such direction will be given to a person competent to investigate the offence and the police officer in rank superior to the police officer in charge of the police station, Inspector General, Vigilance, has been directed to carry on further investigation. An Officer superior to rank to an officer-incharge of a police station could as well exercise the power of further investigation under s. 173(8) in view of the provision embodied in s. 36 of the Code. If that be so, such superior officer could as well undertake further investigation on his own and it is immaterial and irrelevant

21 that he does it at the instance or on the direction of the State Government. Such a direction in no way corrodes his power to further investigate on his own. [33 G-H, 34 A-D] State of Gujarat v. Shantilal Mangaldas and Ors. [1969] 3 SCR 341 at 372, ex-parte Stephens [1876] Ch.D., 659 and Patna Improvement Trust v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi and Ors.,

[1963] Suppl 2 SCR 812; referred to.”

With the above in perspective, the Accused No. 1 and 2, as the Superior Police Officers are Public Servants as per Section 21 of IPC. Further, a reading of section 166-A of IPC clearly quotes about a “‘Public Servant’ disobeying direction under law”, such as failing to record any information of offences u/s 376C of IPC, thus NOT RESTRICTING the application of section 166-A, sub-section (c) of IPC only to Accused No.3 or the officer-in-charge of a police station or SHO. It is mentioned in the supra. R.P. Kapur case that - s. 154, Code of Criminal Procedure, does not say that an information of a cognizable offence can only be made to an officer in charge of a police station. So, it is clear that a Superior Police officer with the powers vested in him through section 36 of CrPC, section 77 of KP Act and rule 183 of KP Manual is empowered to register an FIR based on information of offences.

It is further mentioned in the supra. State of Bihar case that - power of superintendence would comprehend power to issue directions, orders for performance of duty in a certain manner. This clearly means that the Accused No.1 and 2, as the Superior Officers with superintendent power had all the power to issue an order to the subordinates to perform duty so that the provisions of section 166-A of IPC is not violated.

Further, as per section 77 of the KP Act, the Superior Officers had all the powers to avoid infringement of any existing law. The Accused No. 1 and 2, as superior officers failed to record the information of offences u/s 376C by

22 exercising the powers u/s 77 of KP Act. So, Accused No. 1 and 2 have deliberately failed to exercise power as public servant bestowed in them through section 36 of Cr.P.C., section 77 of KP Act and rule 183 of KP Manual in a case of information/complaint involving offences u/s 376C of IPC and hence, they are liable to attract offences u/s 166-A of IPC for their failure to get the information filed in the initial complaint at Annexure “C” u/s 154 of Cr.P.C. r/w section 36 of CrPC, section 77 of KP Act and rule 183 of KP Manual.

10). Extracts of the Report of the Committee on Amendments to Criminal Law, January, 23, 2013 - Chief Justice of India J.S. Verma Committee :-

In “Chapter Twelve - Police Reforms” of this Report, it reads as follows:-

“2. The Supreme Court, almost 17 years ago, in Vineet Narain & Ors Vs. Union Of India & Anr observed that Government agencies must be duly compelled to perform their legal obligations and to proceed in accordance with law against each and every person involved, irrespective of the height at which he is placed in the power set up. This is vital to prevent erosion of the Rule of Law and to preserve democracy in our country and is a requirement of Article 14, Part III of the Constitution. The committee re- iterates that proper procedure must be followed by the police in relation to the filing of each and every complaint by an individual and investigation of the complaint irrespective of the social or economic status of the complainant. xx xxx xx xx xxx xx

4. Despite this, the judgment has not been substantially implemented across India and compliance by most states, as well as the Government of India, remains generally poor. The Supreme Court in State of U.P v Chhoteylal observed:

23

“We are constrained to observe that criminal justice system is not working in our country as it should. The police reforms have not taken place despite directions of this Court in the case of Prakash Singh & Ors vs Union of India & Ors. We do not intend to say anything more in this regard since matter is being dealt with separately by a 3-Judge Bench. The investigators hardly have professional orientation; they do not have modern tools. On many occasions impartial investigation suffers because of political interference…. xx xxx xx xx xxx xx

7. Non-implementation has resulted in deprivation of the benefits which police reforms would bring to the protection of fundamental rights of the ordinary people. The Committee takes the view that the majority of the fundamental rights set out in Part III of the Constitution require an efficient, sensitive and impartial police force for fulfillment in the way the drafters of the Constitution intended. Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 can only be protected if those who feel that they face the threat of a sexual offence can approach any police officer for protection or those who have been the victim of any sexual offence can register an FIR at the nearest police station/ online and feel that their complaint will be properly investigated; without delay, intimidation, harassment or prejudice and irrespective of their economic or social status. After all, the right of a person to complain against violation of his or her dignity by having the FIR properly registered and the complaint properly investigated has to be read into the requirement of life with dignity guaranteed in Article 21.”

With the above in perspective, we can realise that even after 8 years of the above committee report that resulted in major

24 and serious amendments in the Criminal laws of our country, no major changes can be seen on the ground reality. The proper procedure that must be followed by the police in relation to the filing of each and every complaint by an individual and investigation of the complaint irrespective of the social or economic status of the complainant is still doubtful. Even today, impartial investigation suffers because of political interference. Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21 are violated because even after a sexual offence is committed, the police officers, including superior police officers do not even register an FIR and properly investigate without delay, intimidation, harassment or prejudice and irrespective of their economic or social status, as can be clearly seen in the handling of the information of offences submitted before Accused No. 1, 2 and 3. Therefore, it is submitted that, the Accused No. 1, 2 and 3 are alleged to attract offences u/s 166-A of IPC and they should be tried under the said offence in order to implement the Committee report as well as the subsequent Criminal Law amendments of 2013.

11). Prosecution Sanction:- With the deliberate and wanton failure by the Inspector of Police of Cubbon Park PS - Mr. Maruti B, Deputy Commissioner of Police - Central Division of Bangalore City Police - Mr. Anucheth M N and Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City Police - Mr. Kamal Pant in filing the FIR against the initial complaint at Annexure “C”, it is alleged that these alleged accused are liable to be proceeded for offences u/s 166-A of IPC and any other suitable offences. It is submitted that, there is no requirement of prosecution sanction in order to prosecute the alleged accused for offences u/s 166-A of IPC as per the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013.

12). Locus-standi of filing this Criminal Complaint: As per A. R. Antulay Vs. Ramdas Srinivas Nayak & Anr., 1984 AIR 718, 1984 SCR (2) 914, it is held that the fundamental postulate of the administration of criminal justice is that

25 anyone can set the criminal law into motion unless the statute enacting the offence makes a special provision to the contrary both with regard to the locus-standi of the complainant, the manner and method of investigation and the person competent to investigate the offence, and the court competent to take cognizance. It is the duty of every dutiful Citizen of India to file an appropriate complaint once the knowledge of crime is realized. Hence, the complainant is filing this instant complaint.

13). Jurisdiction:- It is submitted therefore that, the Complaint against the accused at Annexure “A” falls within the jurisdiction of Cubbon Park Police Station, Bangalore. This PS falls under the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Hence, the Complainant is submitting this Instant Complaint before this Hon’ble Court.

It is humbly submitted that, with the deliberate and wanton failure by the Inspector of Police of Cubbon Park PS - Mr. Maruti B, Deputy Commissioner of Police - Central Division of Bangalore City Police - Mr. Anucheth M N and Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City Police - Mr. Kamal Pant in filing the FIR against the initial complaint, it is alleged that these alleged accused are liable to be proceeded for offences u/s 166-A of IPC and any other suitable offences.

*************

26

PRAYER

Wherefore it most respectfully prayed that in the circumstances of the aforesaid case, the Complainant most respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to:

� In exercise of Power under section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, direct the Station House Officer of Cubbon Park PS or any other Jurisdictional Police Station of Bangalore City that you may deem appropriate to lodge FIR and investigate on the Complaint filed by the present Complainant at Annexure “A”.

� Pursuant to issue of direction as aforesaid, monitor the status aforesaid investigation and to issue such direction as may be deemed necessary by this Hon’ble Court.

� Pass any other order or to issue any other direction as may be necessary or expedient in the facts and circumstances of above case.

BENGALURU [ADARSH R IYER] DATED: 06.04.2021 COMPLAINANT PARTY IN PERSON

27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Adarsh R Iyer

Complaint against CoP, DCP- Central and Inspector of Police- Cubbon Park PS u/s 166A of IPC in Ramesh Jarkiholi CD case.

Adarsh R Iyer Wed, Mar 17, 2021 at 1:11 PM To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]

Ref. No: JSP/COMPT/CPPS/RJCD/001/2021

To, 17/03/2021, Station House Officer, Bangalore. Cubbon Park Police Station, #8, , Bangalore.

Dear Sir, Subject:- Information/Complaint against:- 1. Mr. Kamal Pant - Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City Police; 2. Mr. Anucheth M N - DCP -Central Division, Bangalore City Police; 3. Mr. Maruti B - Inspector of Police, Cubbon Park Police Station, Bangalore City Police, u/s 166A for failing to register FIR as they being public servants failed to register FIR for alleged offences of sexual intercourse by a person in authority such as the then Minister of Water Resources, Mr. Ramesh Jarkiholi on a complaint dated 02/03/2021 by one person named, Mr. Dinesh Kallahalli who claims to be the President of “£ÁUÀjÃPÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ ºÉÆÃgÁl ¸À«Äw”, thus failing to carry out their duties in a disciplined manner, acting in a prejudiced manner against the said Complainant as well as the purported victim, displaying gross incompetence by buckling under the pressure of the powerful ruling political class, flouting laws of the land and Supreme Court of India guidelines with impunity and bringing disrepute to the independent working of the Karnataka State Police Force. Refs:- 1). Complaint/Information of offences by the said Complainant to Inspector of Police, Cubbon Park Police Station, Bangalore, dated 02/03/2021, received at 18:45; 2). Purported withdrawal of the above said Complaint, apparently by the said complainant through a letter, dated 07/03/2021; 3). Instruction Note with No: HLPALMO/542/2021, dated 09/03/2021 issued by the Home Minister, Government of Karnataka to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City Police; 4). Order issued by the Department of Police, Government of Karnataka, dated 11/03/2021 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City Police with a copy to the DG & IGP, Karnataka State Police. 1). We have been working tirelessly as anti-corruption crusaders in the capacity of Office Bearers of Janaadhikaara Sangharsha Parishath [hereinafter referred to as “JSP”], a registered non-governmental, non-profit organization. JSP is a registered trust under Indian Trust Act and a non-governmental, non-profit organization. JSP is an organization born to fight against corruption prevailing in the various systems of our country, to uphold & secure the fundamental and legal rights of the citizens38 of our country and to uplift socially and economically oppressed class. The Organization has fought for rape victims, POCSO victims, admissions to schools under RTE (Right to Education) for poor and socially backward classes etc. It is one of the initial complainants in the extortion case against the father-son duo of erstwhile Lokayukta Bhaskar Rao and Ashwin Rao. Based on the organization’s complaint, Hon'ble Upalokayukta, Justice Subhash B Adi ordered an investigation and an FIR was filed by Smt. Sonia Narang against Ashwin Rao and his aides. The Organization’s office bearers have represented as party-in-person before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka wherein a senior sub-registrar had filed a Criminal Petition 8057/2016 to 8078/2016 u/s 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the 22 FIRs filed by us as original complainants in several cases of illegal land grabbing of Government lands and were successful in convincing the Hon’ble Court to dismiss the said petition. The Organization’s office bearers have also represented as party-in-person before the Hon’ble 3rd ACMM Court, Bangalore wherein in the capacity of Original Complainants, strong objections were filed for the rejection of bail of accused no. 2 in the above 22 FIRs and eventually the Court rejected his bail. The Organization has also filed Writ Petition before the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka through legal counsel in a PIL - WP 29585/2016 that facilitated in securing the fundamental Right to Education of thousands of economically backward children, WP 6458/2018 & WP 32035/2019, as party-in-persons. 2). With regards to the above subject and references, one person named, Mr. Dinesh Kallahalli who claims to be the President of “£ÁUÀjÃPÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ ºÉÆÃgÁl ¸À«Äw” had filed an initial complaint [hereinafter referred to as “Initial Complaint”] with the Inspector of Police [hereinafter referred to as “PI”], Cubbon Park Police Station [hereinafter referred to as “CPPS”] [Ref. (1)] with Ref. No: £ÁºÀºÉÆøÀ/CP/CD/12/2021, dated 02/03/2021. A detailed and an in-depth perusal of the Initial Complaint reveals the fact of allegations of offences of sexual acts and sexual intercourse with a lady by the then Minister of Water Resources, Mr. Ramesh Jarkiholi so as to satisfy his sexual desires by exploiting his superior position as one of the Cabinet Ministers of Government of Karnataka which allegedly attracts offence u/s 376C of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and any other suitable offences. An extract of the Initial Complaint that makes out the above said offence reads as below:- “...¸ÀzÀj AiÀÄĪÀw QgÀÄavÀæ ¤ªÀiÁðtPÉÌAzÀÄ ¸ÀaªÀ ²æà gÀªÉÄñï eÁgÀQºÉƽ, gÀªÀgÀ §½ §AzÁUÀ ¤£ÀUÉ PÉ.¦.n.¹.J¯ï£À°è GzÉÆåÃUÀ PÉÆr¸ÀĪÀÅzÁV w½¹ DPÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀªÀÄä PÁªÀÄ vÀȵÉUÁV §¼À¹PÉÆAqÀÄ £ÀAvÀgÀ GzÉÆåÃUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀzÉ DPÉUÉ ªÀAa¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸ÀzÀj AiÀÄĪÀw §½ vÀªÀÄä PÁªÀÄzÁlzÀ «rAiÉÆ EzÉ JAzÀÄ w½AiÀÄÄwÛzÀÝAvÉ DPÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ DPÉAiÀÄ PÀÄlÄA§ ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀåjUÉ fêÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ MrØgÀÄvÁÛgÉ...”. 3) As the Initial Complaint disclosed serious cognizable offences u/s 376C of IPC and several other offences, the Inspector of Police of CPPS ought to have registered an FIR before proceeding further for investigation. Instead, the entire Karnataka State Police machinery was pressed into action of searching the whereabouts of the victim, thus violating the Amended Criminal Law of 2013 where the police were duty bound to record and register the information of offence under few sections of IPC that relate to the offences against women and of course, in blatant violation of the orders passed by the Constitution bench of the Supreme Court of India in Lalita Kumari Vs Govt of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1, where the police is duty bound to register an FIR in case the complaint disclosed cognizable offence. It also violated several decisions of the High Court of Karnataka (Reportable Judgement in Criminal Petition No. 15941/2012 C/W 15852/2012, dated 05.02.2013, High Court of Karnataka and several others) which clearly postulate that any investigation without filing an FIR is invalid. But,39 the entire gamut of investigation was aimed at intimidating the initial complainant himself as he was summoned several times to the concerned police station on the pretext of investigation while the accused was never issued a notice to appear before the concerned police station for an enquiry/investigation, just because the accused was a powerful cabinet minister in the Government of Karnataka. This is nothing but a total rewriting of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C) where the complainant is treated like an accused while the accused is treated as though he is the victim. On a perusal of the withdrawal [Ref. (2)] of the said Initial Complaint by the said complainant, it is quite clear that he was under tremendous pressure due to several threats to him and questions raised against the victimised woman in the said Initial Complaint. If the reasons quoted by the complainant in the said withdrawal letter were not true, an FIR would have been filed by now against the then Cabinet Minister, Mr. Ramesh Jarkiholi and investigation would have proceeded. But, no FIR was filed against Mr. Ramesh Jarkiholi. Proceeding further, a letter is written to the Home Minister of the Government of Karnataka by Mr. Ramesh Jarkiholi, dated 09/03/2021 where he requests for the formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) of top officers to investigate against the Initial Complaint on a pretext of conspiracy to defame him and destroy his political career. Based on this letter by the accused, Mr. Ramesh Jarkiholi, the Home Minister proceeds to issue an Instruction Note with No: HLPALMO/542/2021, dated 09/03/2021 [Ref. (3)] to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City Police to form an SIT so as to investigate into the allegations made by the accused himself thus throwing all basic principles of criminal jurisprudence and principles of natural justice into the dustbin. An Order was immediately issued by the Department of Police, Government of Karnataka, dated 11/03/2021 [Ref. (4)] signed by the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City Police with a copy to the DG & IGP, Karnataka State Police. Such a prejudiced and one-sided order issued by any Home Minister of a State is possible only if he carries a presumptuous assumption that a powerful Cabinet Minister can never be treated as an accused. 4). The promptness with which the Home Minister and the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City Police acted upon the letter by the accused Mr. Ramesh Jarkiholi and formed an SIT of top officers of the Karnataka State Police as compared to non-registration of FIR and forcing the initial complainant to withdraw the Initial Complaint is unreasonable and illegal. Such blatant acts of violations of laws of the land exhibits gross abuse of power by the powerful ruling political class with the top brass of the Karnataka State Police machinery meekly surrendering to the whims and fancies of the political class to scuttle the investigation into the offences of sexual exploitation against the then Cabinet Minister. According to the various decisions of the Supreme Court of India (Anju Chaudhary Vs State of U.P., (2013) 6 SCC 384) and several High Courts, an accused has no right to be heard before filing an FIR against him. In this case, just because the accused is a powerful Cabinet Minister, he was not only heard, but the police machinery was misused to pressurise the initial complainant to withdraw the initial complaint and constitute a SIT of top officers to investigate into the allegations of conspiracy to defame and harm politically, based on a letter by the accused powerful Cabinet Minister. This setting up of an SIT itself on the demand of an accused exhibits the fact that though India is a Democracy, such abuse of power, blatant violations of law, prejudiced actions against common man and in favour of a few powerful political class of people mark India as a Democracy only with elections and India is no longer a democracy but an ‘Electoral Autocracy’ as recently declared by a Swedish Institute called V Dem Institute. 5). With the above in perspective, the concerned40 station police officers have utterly failed to carry out their duty in accordance with law as they have a bounden duty to register an FIR in case any information of alleged offences u/s 376C of IPC submitted to them. Mr. Maruti B, the Inspector of Police of Cubbon Park PS who has received the Initial Complaint at Ref. (1) has deliberately failed to record the information of offences submitted only to save the accused powerful cabinet minister, Mr. Ramesh Jarkiholi from punishment and embarrassment. This act of not recording an FIR and not acting as per the various guidelines provided to carry out an investigation in such a case attracts offences u/s 166A of IPC, which was introduced through Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013. 6). Further, the news of this initial complaint was getting broadcasted in every print and TV media for the past fortnight and there was no reason to believe that the concerned DCP of Central Division or the Commissioner of Police of Bangalore City Police had no information with regards to the information of offences as per the Initial Complaint at Ref. (1). In addition to the above, there is documentary evidence of these senior police officers getting informed of the said initial complaint due to the announcement of a SIT formed based on the Instruction Note by the Home Minister of Karnataka where this Instruction Note [Ref. (3)] clearly mentions the Initial Complaint dated 02/03/2021 filed at Cubbon Park PS. Further Order was issued by the Commissioner of Police of Bangalore City Police to constitute SIT with seven (7) top police officers like one IGP, one DIG, two DCPs, one ACP and two Inspectors of Police with a copy of the same submitted to the DG & IGP of Karnataka State Police and the Home Minister of Karnataka. So, even with documentary evidence like the Instruction Note [Ref (3)], Order by the Police Department itself to constitute an SIT [Ref (4)], top officers like the DCP of Central Division and Commissioner of Police of Bangalore City Police cannot wriggle out of their duty to adhere to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013 where they were duty bound to get the information recorded in the form of an FIR against the Initial Complaint that clearly made out offences u/s 376C of IPC as they cannot claim that they are not aware of the initial complaint. Further, these two officers of Police Department are superior ranked officers who derive power to record and register an FIR in accordance with section 36 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 whereby they get power to register FIR and investigate into an offence. This has been established in various citations of both the Supreme Court of India as well as several High Courts. So, the DCP of Central Division or the Commissioner of Police of Bangalore City Police have deliberately failed to exercise power as public servant bestowed in them through section 36 of Cr.P.C. in a case of complaint involving offences u/s 376C of IPC and hence, they are liable to attract offences u/s 166A of IPC for their failure to get the information filed in the initial complaint u/ss 36 and 154 of Cr.P.C. 7). With the deliberate and wanton failure by the Inspector of Police of Cubbon Park PS - Mr. Maruti B, Deputy Commissioner of Police - Central Division of Bangalore City Police - Mr. Anucheth M N and Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City Police - Mr. Kamal Pant in filing the FIR against the initial complaint, we allege that these alleged accused are liable to be proceeded for offences u/s 166A of IPC and any other suitable offences. As there is no requirement of prosecution sanction in order to prosecute the alleged accused for offences u/s 166A of IPC as per the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act of 2013, we strongly urge that:- i) The instant complaint is registered as FIR; and ii) Necessary directions are issued in the right earnest to register the FIR against the complaint quoted in ref. (1). We sincerely request you to do the needful at the41 earliest.

Thanking you,

Adarsh R Iyer Prakash Babu B K Vishwanath V B (Co-President) (Co-President) (Executive Member)

P.S: Please find attached the signed copy of the Complaint along with the Annexures for your perusal.

Enclosures: 1). Photocopy of Complaint/Information of offences by the Initial Complainant, Mr. Dinesh Kallahalli to Inspector of Police, Cubbon Park Police Station, Bangalore, dated 02/03/2021, received at 18:45 - 2 Pages; 2). Photocopy of the purported withdrawal of the above said Initial Complaint, apparently by the complainant through a letter, dated 07/03/2021 - 5 Pages; 3). Photocopy of the Instruction Note with No: HLPALMO/542/2021, dated 09/03/2021 issued by the Home Minister, Government of Karnataka to the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City Police - 1 page; 4). Photocopy of the Order issued by the Department of Police, Government of Karnataka, dated 11/03/2021 issued by the Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City Police with a copy to the DG & IGP, Karnataka State Police - 2 pages.

C.C:- 1). Hon’ble Chief Justice of High Court of Karnataka; 2). DG & IGP, Karnataka State Police; 3). Commissioner of Police, Bangalore City Police; 4). Deputy Commissioner of Police - Central Division, Bangalore City Police.

Complaint+Enclosures-CoP-DCP-PI-Sec166A.pdf 3027K

42 43 44

45

46 47 48 49 50 51 52

R 53 E MEN BASAVARAJ BOMMAI Room No. 327 & 327A Minister for Home, Law, TAKA 3rd Floor, Parliamentary Affairs & Legislation Bengaluru-560 001 and Haveri, Udupi (Addl., Charge) KAR Ph: 080-2225466 1 District In-Charge Minister 22033439

10.03.2021 No: HLPALMO/S 2021 Date..

8doos 09-03-202IUO aaeS o@veas Be däbeps .

202100 DOBseow Seeaes

RSaopay ewse ovad aow 893wsp3.

wo@aD DeSd3.

54 55 56

IN THE COURT 8th ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE COURT AT BENGALURU

PCR NO.______/2021 BETWEEN: ADARSH R IYER .....Complainants

AND: KAMAL PANT & ORS. ....Accused

VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT

I, Adarsh R Iyer, S/o N. Ramanatha Iyer, aged about 47 years, residing at #508/A/20, I Floor, 7th Main, 5th Cross, Mahalakshmi Layout, Bangalore - 560086, do hereby solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

1. I am the Complainant in the above case and well conversant with the facts of the case.

2. The information of offences at Annexure “A” has been submitted u/s 154(1) of Cr.P.C. to the officer-in-charge of the police station and u/s 154(3) of Cr.P.C. to the DCP of Central Division, Bangalore City Police as the SHO did not act on it.

3. The averments made in the accompanying PCR at para Nos. 1 to 13 are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

4. Annexures 'A', ‘A-1’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’, ‘E’, ‘F’ & ‘G’ are the true copies of their respective originals.

Identified by me.

Deponent. Bangalore, Date: