L J MALATHI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondents to pay her compensation of 10 lakhs or any other sum as may be determined by this Court.

(2.) THE petitioner contends that after completion of her pre-university course, she was admitted to Maharani College at Bangalore for the study of B.A. degree course. In the meantime, she was married to Mukthar Ahmad, on account of which, she could not complete her graduation. THErefore, she joined a Chartered Accountants firm 'M/s. Ahmadullah Basheer as an accountant, and later joined 'M/s. Baig and Company'. She has given birth to two children. Her husband was working initially as a salesman and later opened a small shop of gift articles. He was unable to bear the torture for having married a Hindu girl. She was residing in a premises belonging to Radha- krishna. THE resident of the locality, namely, Mr. Masood, Mr. Ali, Mr. Prasad and Mr. Ganesh along with Mr. Radhakrishna and his wife Smt. Savitri induced her husband to take alcohol, drugs, etc., on account of which, he suffered loss in his business. Her husband finally committed suicide. After the death of her husband, she continued the business of her husband at shop No. 1221/2, H. M. Road, S. Kariyanna Palya, Bangalore-84 after obtaining loan from the Banks. She had filed several complaints with the police against the antisocial elements, who were harassing her after the death of her husband. THE police failed to take any action on the said complaints. On 4.6.2006, Radhakrishna and his wife Savitri along with certain goondas of the locality ransacked her shop and looted the articles, cash, etc. When she resisted the looting of her shops, her right hand was fractured. THErefore, she filed a complaint before the police, which was not accepted by them. THErefore, she filed a private complaint before the luris- dictional Magistrate in Crime No.234/2006, which was referred for investigation. However, the police received the complaint lodged by Radhakrishna against her and registered a case in C.C.No.24804/2007. THE police filed 'B' report on her complaint in Crime No.234/ 2006. She challenged the 'B' report. THE Magistrate after recording her statement took cognizance of the offence and issued process to the accused persons in C.C.No.24809/2009. Radhakrishna is a close associate of a local politician, who has close nexus with the second respondent. THE police arrested her in the case filed by Radhakrishna and she was remanded to judicial custody for 22 days from 6.7.2007 to 28.7.2007. She could not even get the bail. Thus, she spent 22 days in judicial custody for no fault of hers. Her children became shelterless as the landlord took possession of her residence. Her sons were forced to live in an orphanage. THEy were forcibly taken to Kerala and brought back during the said period. THEy could not go to the school. After her release, she was once again attacked by the very same people, who had earlier attacked her. As such, she filed a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate in Crime No.366/2008. Accordingly, charge- sheet was filed against them.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 1 has filed statement of objections. The affidavit has been sworn to by N. B. Sakri, the 6th respondent herein, who was working as the Police Inspector at Banasawadi Police Station, Bangalore. In the statement of objections, he has denied that petitioner has filed any complaint before the police. She has filed a private complaint against Radhakrishna before the Jurisdictional Magistrate regarding the incident, which had taken place on 4.6 2006 and the same was referred to investigation in Crime No.234/2006. The said case was investigated and a final report was submitted to the Jurisdictional Magistrate stating that the complaint was a false one. The Jurisdictional Magistrate accepted the said report in FIR No. 1209/2006 on 10.1.2007. The final report came to be challenged by the petitioner and the same is pending trial in C.C.No.24809/2009. The allegation that Radhakrishna is a close nexus with the second respondent is denied. Since Radhakrishna had filed a complaint against the petitioner regarding the incident, which had taken place on 6.7.2007, which was registered in C.R. No.301/2007 under Sections 324, 506(b) of IPC. In the said case, the petitioner was arrested and produced before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The petitioner was released on bail after 22 days. She was injudicial custody from 6.7.2007 to 28.7.2007. Since there was no one to look after petitioner's minor son Manoj aged about 8 years, on humanitarian consideration, he left the petitioner's son in an orphanage at ECHo. He has denied the contentions that her sons were forcibly taken to Kerala and brought back during the said period and their educational career was destroyed. On 28.11.2007, the petitioner gave yet another complaint stating that her elder son Sandeep is missing. The said case came to be registered in Crime No.482/2007. After registering the ease, the respondent has taken steps by publishing the pamplets of the missing boy and the photos of the missing boy all over Bangalore and he had deputed staff for tracing the said boy. The petitioner has also filed habeas corpus petition in W.P. No.29/2008. Her son was traced and was produced before the Court on 17.3.2008. The petitioner's son gave a statement before the Court that he will not go along with her. The said statement came to be recorded and an order was passed to keep her son in remand home. As per the said order, petitioner's son was kept at ECHo. She again filed an application in the said case to hand oyer her son Sandeep to her custody. On 2.4.2008, her son was again produced before this Court and the son of the petitioner was handed over to her and an acknowledgment was obtained to the said effect. In the present case also, the petitioner made a statement that her son is missing. This Court has passed an order on 17.3.2011 directing the police to file a status report regarding her son Sandeep. On 15.4.2011, this Court has passed an order to secure the presence of Sandeep. Sandeep was produced before this Court on 26.5.2011 and on that day, he refused to join his mother. The private complaint filed by the petitioner before the Jurisdictional Magistrate in PCR No.202/2008 was referred for investigation. The said complaint was registered in Crime No.366/2008. The said case was investigated and a charge-sheet has been filed against Mr. Radhakrishna, Savithri, Prasad, Masood and Yogesh. The case is under trial in C.C. No.24340/2009 before the competent Court. The complaint filed by Radhakrishna against the petitioner in Crime No.301/2011, which was tried by the Magistrate in C.C. No.2404/ 2010 ended in acquittal on 13.12.2009. It is contended that the official respondents have done their duty in an unbiased manner and the petitioner was not subjected to any harassment or ill-treatment at any stage. He has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.