IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT BENGALURU

(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION)

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF

W.P.No. /2020 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

H.L.Vishala Raghu, Advocate, S/o. Late. H.N. Lingegowda, Aged about 44years, No.1922/A, 5th Cross, Subhash Nagar, Mandya – 571 401 Petitioner

AND

1. State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs Government of Karnataka VidhanaSoudha – 560001.

2. The Director General of Police Police Head Quarters, Nrupathunga Road, Beside RBI, Bangalore – 560001.

3. The Commissioner of Police No.2, Ali Asker Road, Vasanth Nagar, Bangalore- 560051.

4. Assistant Commissioner of Police Sub-Division No.9, 3,Balepet Main Road, Upparpet, Chickpet, Bangalore – 560009.

5. Sri.Suresh.M.R Major, Police Inspector Upparpet Police Station Bangalore – 560001.

6. The National Investigation Agency Sy No.41/14, Khanamet, Madhapur, (Hi-Tech City-JNTU Road), Hyderabad- 500085 Represented by its Director General

7. Amulya Leona Noronha Aged about 19 years Resident of Gubbugadde Village, Surya Temple Post,Koppa Taluk, Chikkamagalur District

Presently residing at Anai Apartment 10th J Cross, Nagavarapalya, C.V.Raman Nagar, Bangalore Respondents

MEMORANDUM OF WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA

1. Petitioner is a practicing advocate at Mandya and other part of Karnataka,he is a patriotic, and he is member of Karnataka State Bar Council. Petitioner is hail from Freedom Fighter family and whenever there is a threat to National Interest and integrity, he will not hesitate to knock the doors of justice and in a case pertaining to disrespect to our National Flag, Anthem.

2. Petitioner is highly aggrieved of the inaction of Respondents No.2 to 5 in not initiating appropriate timely action against Respondent No.7/Accused by filing the Charge Sheet within the stipulated time as contemplated under Sec.167 (2) (a) (ii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 thereby facilitating the said Respondent No.7/Accused to obtain statutory bail though the said Respondent No.7/Accusedwas not entitled for a bail as the learned Magistrate had rejected her bail application at the first instance and the offences alleged against Respondent No.7/Accused are serious in nature and are concerning the peace and integrity of our Nation and the Investigation requires to be handed over to the National Investigation Agency.

3. The case of the prosecution leading to the arrest of Respondent No.7/Accused is that on 20-2-2020 at about 6.50 Pm, Respondent No.7/Accused was speaking in a program organized to protest against Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), The National Register of Citizens (NRC) &National Population Register (NPR) at the Freedom Park, Bangalore and Respondent No.7/Accused shouted slogan as “Pakistan Jindabad” several times in the mike on the stage wherein there was a huge crowd and act of Respondent No.7/Accused was an attempt to bring enmity between different community and affecting the unity and integrity of the nation and Respondent No.7/Accused instigated the people and committed breach of peace and thereby committed offences punishable under Sec.124 (A), 153 (B), 5050 (2) of the Indian Penal Code. The case was registered in Crime No.29/2020 by Respondent No.5 and Respondent No.7/Accused was produced before the learned 5th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Bangalore on 20-2- 2020 and the criminal case was registered as C.C.No.5731/2020 and the bail application moved by Respondent No.7/Accused was rejected by the learned Magistrate. Copy of the entire order sheet in C.C.No.5731/2020 is produced herewith as ANNEXURE-A.

4. Respondent No.7/Accused was arrested on the same day and remanded to judicial custody as her bail application came to be rejected. Thereafter Respondent No.7/Accused moved an application under Sec.167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of statutory bail contending that as Respondents 2 to 5 failed to file the Charge Sheet and that Respondent No.7/Accused has been in custody for 95 days, she is entitled for statutory bail. The Investigating Officer namely Respondent No.5 has filed the Charge Sheet only on 3-6-2020 after the period of 90 days. The learned Magistrate by an order dated 10-6-2020 in C.C.No.5731/2020 has enlarged respondent No.7/Accusedon bail. Copies of the order dated 10-6-2020, FIR and Complaint are produced herewith as ANNEXURE-B, C and D.

5. It is submitted that time and again this Hon’ble Court have observed that the Investigating officer is duty bound to complete the investigation and file the Charge Sheet within the stipulated time of 90 days failing which the Accused has to be extended the benefit of statutory bail under Sec.167 of the Criminal Procedure Code..

6. In the case of Kashmir students Sedition case, wherein the students were arrested for posting videos of them speaking in favour of Pakistan which was widely circulated and though this Hon’ble Court denied bail, in view of the Investigating Officernot filing the charge sheet within the stipulated time, they were released on statutory bail under Sec.167 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the said investigating Officer has been suspended for not filing the Charge Sheet in time.

7. In the instant case, it is a deliberate act to facilitate the accused to obtain statutory bail and the Respondents 2 to 5 are solely responsible for the delay as there is no proper administrative directions or Standard Operating Procedure to oversee whether the Investigating Officer is conducting the Investigation efficiently and ensure that the said Investigating Officer in any criminal case, files the Charge sheet within the stipulated time as contemplated under Sec.167 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

8. Sedation charges serious in nature and the Investigating officer came to know during the investigation that Respondent No.7/Accused is associated with an organization which is funding for these acts which are against the National interest. Therefore in view of the serious administrative lapse by Respondents 2 to 5, Respondent No.7/Accused has obtained statutory bail and she may abscond. Serious lapsed cannot be overlooked.Respondents 1 to 5have to immediately seek for cancellation of the Bail granted to Respondent No.7/Accused.

9. The National Investigation Agency is a state agency established by the Indian Government to combat terror in India. It acts as the Central Counter Terrorism Law Enforcement Agency. The Agency deal with terror related crimes across states without special permission from the states. The Branch office of the National Investigation Agency at Hyderabad namely Respondent No.6 is having jurisdiction over all the southern states including Karnataka. Respondents 1 to 5 should handover the investigation to Respondent No.6 namely the National Investigation Agency for further probe in the matter of Respondent No.7/Accused and her terror links.

10. In these circumstances, necessary directions are required to be issued to Respondents 2 to 4 to immediately suspend the Investigating Officer namely Respondent No.5 for serious administrative lapses and further direct Respondents 1 to 4, to formulate proper administrative directions or Standard Operating Procedure to oversee whether the Investigating Officer is efficiently handling the Investigation of a Criminal Case and to ensure that in all criminal cased, the Charge sheet is filed within the stipulated period as contemplated under Sec.167 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Further directions are required to be issued to Respondent No.6 namely the National Investigating Agency tofurther probe in the matter of Respondent No.7/Accused and her terror links.Therefore the petitioner has approached this court for necessary directions to the Respondents on the following among other grounds.

11. The Petitioner has not filed any other Writ Petition in respect of the subject matter of this case and no other suit or proceedings are pending in respect of the subject matter of this case. The Petitioner has paid the required Court Fee of Rs.100/- on the Memorandum of this Writ Petition. The Petitioner has no other alternate remedy and therefore have approached this Hon’ble Court for necessary directions to Respondents on the following among other grounds.

GROUNDS: 12. Admittedly Complainant is police inspector, who has filed complaint before the Uparapet policestation at Bangalore, since he was eye witness to entire facts and circumstance of the case. It is further submitted that, 5th respondent is also very much present at the time of incident at freedom park, Bangalore. And 5th respondent have personal knowledge about the criminal offence did by the accused / 7thRespondent.

13. It is submitted that 5th Respondent is responsible Police Inspector and he is Investigation Officer to Crime No.0029/2020 of his station and he must have complete knowledge with respect to jurisprudence of Criminal Procedure Code. Once it is registered as a cognizable offence, 5th Respondent being a duty bounded person take all responsible legal measurement regarding investigation, recording witness statement, spot mahazer and other relevant materials to file necessary charge sheet before the jurisdictional Courts. If, investigation officer failed to file charge sheet within stipulated period under section 167 of Cr.P.C., it is nothing but a deliberately discharging his duty. The present case in hand is heinous offence against the Petitioner’s Nation (Hindustan). And this fact is within the complete knowledge of 5th Respondent/ Investigation officer and his higher authority i.e., Respondents No.1 to 4. The slogan spoken by the accused under the visibility of public seen which was against to the unity of the Country and the said news widely telecasted throughout the country and world. This aspect is under the complete knowledge of Respondent Nos.1 to 5. But, unfortunately within the knowledge of Respondents State authority not made any attempt to file necessary Investigation Report/ Charge Sheet. Because of this impact 7th Respondent / Accused got bail. To avoid further incident like present case, this Hon’ble Court ought to have exercise writ jurisdiction to give specific direction to the Respondent No.1 State. Otherwise it may cause great injustice to the strength and unity of the Hindustan.

14. Once FIR registered under cognizable offence, it is the duty of the investigation officer to file report within stipulated time. Otherwise it will give wrong signal to the offenders and general public about the administrative of criminal justice system.

15. Respondent No.7/Accused was arrested on 20-2-2020 and remanded to judicial custody as her bail application came to be rejected. Thereafter Respondent No.7/Accused moved an application under Sec.167 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of statutory bail as Respondents 2 to 5 failed to file the Charge Sheet as Respondent No.7/Accused has been in custody for 95 days. The Investigating Officer namely Respondent No.5 filed the Charge Sheet only on 3-6-2020 after the period of 90 days. Therefore in view of the serious lapse on the part of Respondents 2 to 5 and in particularly Respondent No.5, Respondent No.7/Accused was released on statutory bail though the court was not inclined to grant the bail as the offences alleged against the said Respondent No.7/Accused were serious in nature.

16. In the case of Kashmir students Sedition case, wherein the students were arrested for posting videos of them speaking in favour of Pakistan was widely circulated and though they were denied bail, in view of the Investigating Officer not filing the charge sheet within the stipulated time, they were released on statutory bail under Sec.167 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the said investigating Officer has been suspended for not filing the Charge Sheet in time.

17. In the instant case, it is a deliberate act to facilitate the accused to obtain statutory bail and the Respondents 2 to 5 are solely responsible for the delay as there is no proper administrative directions or Standard Operating Procedure to oversee whether the Investigating Officer is conducting the Investigation efficiently and ensure that the said Investigating Officer in any criminal case, files the Charge sheet within the stipulated time as contemplated under Sec.167 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

18. Respondent No.7/Accused has been arrested for the offences of Sedition, which is serious in nature and the Investigating officer came to know during the investigation that Respondent No.7/Accused is associated with an organization which is funding for these acts which are against the National interest. Therefore in view of the serious administrative lapse by Respondents 2 to 5, Respondent No.7/Accused has obtained statutory bail and she may abscond. Serious lapsed cannot be overlooked. Therefore Respondent No.6 namely the National Investigating Agency has to be directed to further probe in the matter of Respondent No.7/Accused and her terror links.

GROUNDS FOR INTERIM PRAYER 19. It is submitted that during the Investigation of the case concerning Respondent No.7/Accused and her links, the Investigation Officer came to know of the fact that there is an advisory committee behind Respondent No.7/Accused which has been advising Respondent No.7/Accused as to what is to be spoken in the public speeches and Respondent No.7/Accused only acts as per the instruction issued by the said advisory committee and it is important to unearth the deep nexus of advisory committee and Respondent No.7/Accused and which is the said advisory committee and where is it situate and whether it is a part of action by a terror link group. Therefore further probe has to be taken up by Respondent No.6 namely the National Investigating Agency and in view of the serious lapse by Respondent No.5, the said officer has to be kept under suspension forthwith pending departmental enquiry.

PRAYER 20. WHEREFORE, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ in the nature of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction

a) Directing Respondent No’s 1 to 4, to issue proper administrative directions or Standard Operating Procedure to oversee whether the Investigating Officer is conducting the Investigation of a criminal case efficiently and ensure that the said Investigating Officer in any criminal case, files the Charge sheet within the stipulated time as contemplated under Sec.167 of the Criminal Procedure Code.

b) Directing Respondents 1 to 4 to handover the probe to Respondent No.6 namely The National Investigating Agency to further probe in the matter of Respondent No.7/Accused and her terror links and necessary directions may kindly be issued to Respondent No.6 namely The National Investigating Agency to conduct an impartial probe and submit a report to this Hon’ble Court.

c) Direct Respondents 1 to 4 to seek for cancellation of the Bail granted to Respondent No.7/Accused by the learned 5th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.5731/2020 to secure the presence of Respondent No.7/Accused before Respondent No.6 namely the National Investigating Agency.

d) Direct respondent No’s 2 to 4, to place Respondent No.5 under suspension forthwith due to serious administrative lapses and conduct a departmental enquiry against Respondent No.5. and allow this Writ Petition with costs, in the circumstances of this case.

INTERIM PRAYER That for the reasons stated in paragraph 19 above, It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to

a) Directing Respondents 1 to 4 to handover the probe to Respondent No.6 namely The National Investigating Agency to further probe in the matter of Respondent No.7/Accused and her terror links and necessary directions may kindly be issued to Respondent No.6 namely The National Investigating Agency to conduct an impartial probe and submit a report to this Hon’ble Court.

b) Direct Respondents 1 to 4 to seek for cancellation of the Bail granted to Respondent No.7/Accused by the learned 5th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bangalore in C.C.No.5731/2020 to secure the presence of Respondent No.7/Accused before Respondent No.6 namely the National Investigating Agency.

c) Direct respondent No’s 2 to 4, to place Respondent No.5 under suspension forthwith due to serious administrative lapses and conduct a departmental enquiry against Respondent No.5.

Bengaluru Advocate for Petitioner Date: (H. Pavana Chandra Shetty)

Address for Service:

H. Pavana Chandra Shetty, Advocate, Office at No.14, SaiKrupa, 2nd Floor, Mamatha Apartments, 4th Main, Gandhinagar, Bengaluru- 560 009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

W.P.No. / 2020 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN

H.L.Vishala Raghu Petitioner

AND

State of Karnataka, Represented by its Principal Secretary Ministry of Home Affairsand others Respondents

INDEX Sl. Particulars Page No. Nos. 1 Synopsis 2 Memorandum of Writ Petition 3 Verifying Affidavit 4 ANNEXURE-A: Copy of the entire order sheet in C.C.No.5731/2020.

5 ANNEXURE-B: Copy of order dated 10.06.2020 in C.C.No.5731/2020.

6 ANNEXURE-C: Copy of FIR

7 ANNEXURE-D: Copy of Complaint.

11 Vakalath

Bengaluru Advocate for Petitioner Date: (H. Pavana Chandra Shetty) IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

W.P.No. / 2020 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN

Annapurna and others Petitioners

AND

ManojNayak S and another Respondents

VERIFYING AFFIDAVIT I, M.JayanthiK.Acharya, W/o. K.Keshava Acharya, residing at D.No.1- 23-1910, LeelaBai Compound, Sequeira Lane, Urwa Market, Mangalore, having come to Bengaluru this day, solemnly affirm and state on oath as follows:

1. I submit that I am the Petitioner No.2 in the above Writ Petition and I know the facts and circumstances of this case. I also swear through this affidavit on behalf of other petitioners.

2. I submit that the facts stated and the grounds urged in paragraphs Nos.1 to 20 of the accompanying Writ Petition are true and correct and are based on my personal knowledge. The prayer made in Paragraph Nos.21 and 22 is based on the instructions I had.

3. I submit that ANNEXURE-A to ANNEXURE-F submitted along with the Writ Petition are the true copies of the originals.

4. I do hereby declare that what is stated above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge, information and belief.

Identified by me Deponent Advocate

Date: Place: IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

W.P.No. / 2020 (GM-CPC)

BETWEEN

Annapurna and others Petitioners

AND

ManojNayak S and another Respondents

SYNOPSIS, LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS:

19.02.1995 Plaintiff No.1 purchased Item No.1 through absolute Sale Deed.

02.06.1999 Plaintiff No.2 purchased Item No.2 through absolute Sale Deed and the other plaintiffs acquired Item No.3 to 6 on different dates through absolute sale deeds.

06.05.2016 Plaintiffs learnt about the conspiracy hatched by the Defendants towards the 30 links road.

08.06.2016 The Plaintiff filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against the Defendant No.1 and 2.

13.06.2016 The learned trial court allowed I.A.No.2 for temporary injunction infavour of the plaintiffs against the defendant No.1 and 2.

24.06.2016 Defendants filed Written Statement.

18.07.2019 I.A.No.10 filed by the Defendant No.1 and 2.

24.07.2019 Statement of objection filed by the plaintiff against the I.A.No.10.

20.02.2020 The learned trial court I.A.No.10 and summoning the plaintiff No.7 to cross examination. Hence, this writ petition.

BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE Petitioners being highly aggrieved by the order dated 20.02.2020on I.A.Nos.10 in O.S.No.649/2016 pending on the file of IV Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC, Mangaluru, by allowing the application for seeking summoning of the Plaintiff No.7/ Petitioner No.5 for his cross examination under Order XVI Rule 21 (Karnataka Amendment) r/w Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure.

Petitioners are the Plaintiff No.1, 3, 4, 6 and 7 before the trial court and Respondent No.1 and 2 are the Defendants before the learned trial court. Plaintiff No.2 already transfer the property infavour of Plaintiff No.1 and Plaintiff No.5 is the not party in the present petition for time being.

Plaintiff filed suit No.649/2016 before the learned trial court at Mangaluru dated 08.06.2016 for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining defendants and their mens and agents, servants or any one claim though or under them from damaging, dismantling, any portion of the compound wall and gate pillar situated on the southern side of the schedule properties and 30 links road reserved to the schedule property or trespassing into any portion of schedule property and 30 links road reserved exclusive user of the schedule property or in any manner interfering with peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property and aforesaid 30 links road by the plaintiffs. And consequential reliefs.

It is submitted that based on the strength of the facts and its evidence, circumstances of the case the learned trial court pleased to granted temporary injunction infavour of the Petitioners/ Plaintiffs herein.

The respective Petitioners herein have been acquisition of Item No.1 to 6 properties of the suit schedule properties as per registered documents. Item No.1 of the Schedule property has been acquired by the Petitioner No.1 as per registered Sale Deed dated 19.02.1995, registered as document No.3432/1995-96. That the immovable property morefully described in Item No.2 of schedule here below, hereinafter referred to as Item No.2 of the schedule property has been acquired by the Plaintiff No.2 as per registered Settlement deed dated 02.06.1999, registered as document No.686/1999-2000. That the immovable property morefully described in Item No.3 of schedule here below, hereinafter referred to as Item No.3 of the schedule property has been acquired by the Petitioner No.3 as per registered Sale deed dated 05.06.1989, registered as document No.358/1989-90. That the immovable property morefully described in Item No.4 of schedule here below, hereinafter referred to as Item No.4 of the schedule property has been acquired by the Plaintiff No.4 as per registered Sale deed dated 23.08.2001, registered as document No.1650/2001-02. That the immovable property morefully described in Item No.5 of schedule here below, hereinafter referred to as Item No.5 of the schedule property has been acquired by the Plaintiff No.5 as per registered Sale deed dated 04.01.1991, registered as document No.1473/1990-91. That the immovable property morefully described in Item No.6 of schedule here below, hereinafter referred to as Item No.6 of the schedule property has been acquired by the Plaintiff No.6 as per registered Sale deed dated 18.09.2015, registered as document No.4228/2015-16.

The respective Item Nos.1 to 6 of the schedule of the suit also comprises residential house of the plaintiffs No.1 to 6 respectively. The Item Nos.1 to 6 of the suit schedule property touching each other. The various items of the schedule property along with 30 links road on northern side constitute single compact block. The plaint schedule properties were originally belonged to the plaintiff No.7, who subsequently divided in to pieces and which have later transferred one hand to another and presently the piece of properties which constituted single compact block or now acquired by the plaintiff No.1 to 6 herein.

It is submitted that Respondents / Defendants are powerful builders backed by antisocial elements. The plaintiffs being poor residents are not in a possession to with stand the high handed acts of the defendants. The defendants who have one dismantled substantial portion of the building, may at any time repeat their high handed acts and might destroy entire compound and the gate. Hence, having exhausted all the remedies, left with no option, plaintiffs are constrain to file present suit seeking relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their men, servants.

It is submitted that per-contra the defendant No.1 and 2 filed Written Statement and in the written statement they denied entire facts and circumstances of the case and nothing has demonstrated with respect to the title of the property. The impleading defendant No.3/ Mangaluru Development Authority also filed Written Statement.

It is submitted the defendant filed application under Order XVI Rule 21 (Karnataka Amendment) R/w section 151 of CPC, 1908 for summoning the plaintiff No.7/ Petitioner No.5 Mr.K.SuryakumarShet for cross examination without chief/ evidence.

Plaintiff No.7 executed General Power of Attorney infavour of Plaintiff No.1/ Petitioner No.1 Annapurna. Subsequently, this Respondents / Defendants file I.A.No.10 seeking summoning of the plaintiff No.7 for cross examination and same has been allowed by the learned trial court. Same has challenged before this Hon’ble Court, Annexure-A of the Writ Petition.

The learned trial court without application of mind blindly allowed application by summoning the plaintiff No.7/ Petitioner No.5 for cross examination without chief. Therefore, the order of the learned trial court not stand under the eye of Law and it is bad in law.

It is submitted that section 137 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Chapter 10 permit for Examination-in-Chief, Cross-Examination and Re-Examination and the subsequent provision section 138 of the Act order of examinations. The definition of the 138 is very clear witness shall be first examined then cross-examine, then re-examine. So, the court can only summoning witness to produce document not for to appear cross examination. Therefore, the order of the learned trial court is bad in law. Hence, this writ petition.

Bengaluru Advocate for Petitioners Date: (H. Pavana Chandra Shetty)