NINGE GOWDA Vs. S MADHURESWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 21-2-1997 the respondent filed a complaint against 5 police officers before the iv additional chief metropolitan magistrate, bangalore city, in p. c. r. No. 24 of 1997 alleging that they have assaulted and tortured him in a most inhumanly and barbaric manner causing injuries by detaining him in the police station, etc. And they have committed offences punishable under sections 347, 346, 348, 352, 323, 324, 201 read with Section 34, Indian penal code. The learned magistrate having taken cognizance recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and the witnesses and thereafter directed issue of summons to the petitioner. The said Order is questioned by accused 1 and 2 who are the assistant commissioner of police and police inspector respectively, under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) THE learned counsel submitted that the allegations made in the complaint, the sworn statement and documents produced by the complainant taken on their face value do not constitute any offence against the petitioners. At this stage, it may be mentioned that from the reading of the complaint and also the other materials it is clear that the accused 3 to 5 have assaulted the respondent mercilessly with rope and fists, etc. After undressing him. But as far as these petitioners are concerned, it is alleged that when the accused 3 to 5 were torturing him, they went inside the torture chamber and enquired with the accused 3 to 5 as to whether they were able to extract any information from him. When the accused 3 to 5 told them that the respondent had not disclosed anything, they told the accused 3 to 5 not to leave him so easily and to get the information needed by them in the matter. It is also alleged that they tried to suppress the respondent from obtaining the medical certificates and also informing the magistrate when he was produced before the court by threatening him etc. Therefore, it cannot be said at this stage that no offence is made out as against these petitioners. Be that as it may, the main emphasis on the part of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the allegations made against the petitioners are absurd, frivolous and an after-thought on the ground that when the respondent was produced before court on 11-1-1997, he did not complain about any ill-treatment but for the first time he revealed to the magistrate only on 13-1-1997. Hence, it is nothing but an after-thought. He also further contended that the complainant himself appeared before the doctor at victoria hospital on 15-1-1997 and told him that he was assaulted by a-4, a-5 and 2 police constables of n. t. pet police station on 10-1-1997. According to him, the history given by the respondent also does not make out any case against these petitioners. Further, he has drawn my attention to the complaint dated 21-2-1997 wherein it is mentioned that the accused 3 to 5 assaulted him and these petitioners have not assaulted him as indicated above. These petitioners are the superior officers of accused 3 to 5 and the allegations indicate that at the behest of these petitioners, to extract some information from the respondent, the accused 3 to 5 were directed to ill-treat him by giving the aeroplane treatment, etc. It is also specifically alleged that they used to go to the torture chamber and enquire as to whether any information was revealed or not. This part of the allegations cannot be lost sight of to find out the involvement of these petitioners. However, without going deep into these matters there is a reasonable ground to believe that these petitioners also instigated the accused 3 to 5 who are their subordinates to give him inhumane torture.