NAGAYYA CHANDRASHEKHAR KADADEVAR Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioning Police Sub-Inspector has called into question the order, dated 27.01.2014 (Annexure-D) passed by the Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, Bangalore in HRC No.4750/TC- 73/12.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that when the third respondent and his associate, Mr. Isaac Gopali were propagating their religion on 28.06.2011 in Sharavati Nagar, Hubli, they were abused and attacked by the local people. It is the grievance of the third respondent that the Police, who came to the spot, did not save him from being abused and assaulted. His further grievance is that the complaint lodged by him (the third respondent) against the persons, who abused and assaulted him, was not registered by the Police for a period of eight days. He lodged the complaint with the National Human Rights Commission, which in turn, referred the matter to the State Human Rights Commission, the respondent No.2 herein, for inquiry. The State Human Rights Commission referred the matter to the Inspector General of Police ('the IGP' for short) for investigation. The IGP submitted the report, stating, inter alia, that (i) there is a delay of eight days in registering the complaint lodged by the third respondent and (ii) the Police did not arrange for the medical examination of the third respondent. On considering the material and affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the second respondent Commission passed the impugned order calling upon the Government to initiate the disciplinary action against the petitioner for his failure to register the FIR and for abetting the violation of human rights of the third respondent and of others. It also recommended to the Government of Karnataka to pay the compensation of Rs. 20,000.00 to the third respondent and recover the same from the salary of the petitioner.

(3.) Sri. K.L. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the third respondent has indeed admitted that he had been given protection in the Police Station. He submits that it is the Police Inspector, who is responsible for the registration of the complaint. If the Police Inspector, in his capacity as the S.H.O., has not registered the complaint, the petitioner, who is only a Sub-Inspector, cannot be held responsible for it. He submits that when on the basis of an identical reply, the Police Inspector is exonerated, there is no reason as to why the petitioner, who is the Sub-Inspector, has to be punished or penalised.