High Court Karnataka High Court

Vajra Recreation Association vs Superintendent Of Police on 28 October, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Vajra Recreation Association vs Superintendent Of Police on 28 October, 2010
Author: S.N.Satyanarayana
-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGAI;O:§ES~~T_ _

DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBF/R~i6i'C"\~'   I.

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE   7

WRIT PETITION NO.2SS:74.(20O'SV.rCIA-POLICE).,  

B ETWEEN:

1.

 * . V  DAVANA.CERE

x V' V. I'.

VAJRA RECREATIONIASSOCL*\T-ION  _
(REGD) SOCIETY,     *
No.22, ROD,'  S
BEHIND RAN_CANA;TH_,  
PJBADAVANE, .f '  ' 
DAVA1'éTAGE--RE" _J  ~. _ '_
REP.BY'-ITS I%,RESiD.ENfI*,.. " 
 
S gt O ummg  . 

SHRI.._SUBHA,N   "
EDITOR "VAJ RA' KANNADA WEEKLY
;1025 1 / 1, -251D' 'CROSS
  NAGAR;  ..... .. - .
'  PE'I'I'I'IONERS

 -~£E3:-S';-I M/S PATEL AND PATIL, ADVS)

'  ,SUI>ERINTENDENT OF POLICE
= . _ DAVANAGERE.

DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
DAVANAGERE CTEY,
DAVANAGERE.

W



3. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE
CENTRAL CIRCLE
DAVANAGERE.

4. SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE,  _
EXTENSION, 7 "
POLICE STATION,

DAVANAGERE.

5. SHR1 M C DASHRATHMURFIIII.
CIRCLE INSPECTOR 
DAVANAGERE C1TY'.~..V_

5. SHRIKTGURURAJ . I
SUB INSPECTOR   _  V. A 
EXTENSION FOLICZE STATION; j  V
DAVANAGEREJ  ,     V.'..'RESPONDENTS

(By sri  E
SiNG'1=l, xH»CG"I%.; FOR R1 ~51 "  I  

THISFILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
& 22_7_V OF "'FIIEVC.ONs'FrfU'1'ION OF INDIA PRAYING T0

  _R1  FROM INTERFERING WITH THE

M mwF'IIL ._ACTIvI2IEs OF VAJRA RECREATION
CI'-ASSOC1A§TIvON'.I~.£REGD) SOCIETY, NO.22,  EvI

 DAVANCFRE-2.

--  C-EFOUP THIS OAS}, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

 BEBIINO RANGANATH HARDWARE PJ BADAVANE,

'JFHIS PETITON COMING ON FOR PRHEARING IN 'B'



 



ORDER

Learned Government Pieader files staternerfii of ~

objections on behalf of respor1t1ents…a1_ong_–‘\§ifitti:;}t;1nexusresv

R-1 to R5. The same is taken on re”cord_;’i A. if

2. The petitioners are’-before .th_is’ ”

direction to respondents 1 to”Si’*to”~-.restrain-..them from
interfering with their first petitioner
society. H

3. emf fa’ot.s'”ieadirigjto”‘thi’s are as under:
First ‘ *lpe*;;itionfei* registered society under the

Karnatakpaf’ éfsocietieso Act registered for the

purpose of creating ‘promoting sportive spirit among its

by providing’ facilities of playing indoor games,

such.a-Qhessfcarom, table tennis, card of rummy, jackpot,

biiliarfdsv if-‘iit1ey also specifically say that no games of

Q chance or eVents’of public amusement are conducted in their

“..ji=.premises. It is their case that on 16.9.2009 at about 4.30

5″” respondent along with respondents 3 and «<1

if Wconducted raid on the premises of 1*'-1 petitioner on false

accusation that the members of 13* petitioner society are

-4-

indulging in unlawful activity of playing

game. In the process, he seized the propexftiiesiig 0-

Rs.18,890/»~ cash, 260 playing card_s,..3__3 m;:bi1e’gai:ehesf,.VVe0_

plastic chairs, 1 T.V, 1 table. 2 :3:

small stools. Thereafter, he fil_ed__F’IR”‘against’2fi{3g:.petiti.oner

under Sections 79 and 80 of the___i{arnattaka “Follicle

4. In the said 3(a) which
refers to occurre:’i:ce_ of time, it is stated
that the off€e1’lrf!e4__ .§.}n.. on 16.09.2009.
In the said stated that information of
offencegwas’ station at 7.30 p.m., on

16.o9.2oo9r’_’_e_-ed entered into general diary at

7.30 “i’heV”pa_,r1chariama said to have drawn in respect of

.Atl1e,conci’ucted on the premises of W’ petitioner is drawn

5 p.m. and 7 which is at

Ann’exure¥H;”‘ states that on the same day after getting

.Tir1fo_rrnation regarding some illegal activity going on in the

i ‘premises of 1*” petitioner, 591 respondent with posse of police

-«raided the premises of 15′ petitioner at 4.45 p.m., seized the

articles referred to above and arrested 2″” petitioner.

“””‘\

-5-

5. The counsel for petitioner bring to the notice of this

court the copy oi complaint given by the 2nd petitioner

respondent, wherein he has made serious allegations ~

the way in which respondents 2 to _5~haVe behaireid; it V’

on 16.9.2009 and also the earlier’:.ninsta1’ices~_W3’ierex i’i1eg}:ij

demand for graft is made ‘o_V\_(v””respontierits .3’I’he

contents of said complaint and__ai_icgations rnadpe therein are
too serious in nature to”–b’e.igno-red ‘4b3fp’vihigher officer, much

less ist respondent-4 _ V

statement of the said objections, there is an

attempt tovaissert “(:o:ndiict of respondents 2 to 6 on

n_ 16.932009 and aiso____on earlier occasions regarding the raid

‘C,!()VE1€1i1Ct_vC”(“l on””th_e premises of 151 petitioner and registration

“of:AF’I–R petitioner. In the objections statement filed

by respondents though the respondents tried to substantiate

therconducted by them the essential document which

“empowers them to conduct raid that is the warrant to be

“issued under Rule 81(2) of Karnataka Police Rules is not

produced. However, at the time of arguments, for the first

‘We

-5-

time, learned Government Pleader brings to the noticeVVof’_’t.’1is

court a copy of the warrant said to have__§’_’issii.ed_: _

1.6.9.2009. Interestingly, the said warrant does

the date and time of inforrnation: the

issuing such warrant regairiing alle’ged’:4_v.offence

committed by petitioners and alHs’o_’does not say and at
what time the Warrant issiied. ~

7. If thecopy d:atedV~ 1«e.”o9.2oo9, the FIR
which is at. the efpanchanama, which is at
Annexiiteeflilllare :ii;«:;;_)1.:ed_j’in:to,fi it.._is.5seen that the allegation
made by 9′ the ” the raid conducted by

respondents-._i2~vto’ is cannot be disbelieved. The

cor_1t.i*«%adi__ctions vifhich…are seen in the said documents speak

‘v,olume,’a’bouitA”‘the behaviour and conduct of respondents 2

t’ol«.G.W made in complaint dated 19.9.2009,

Annexni’e–J also supports the contention of petitioners.

9 » ‘T 8. The counsel for petitioner submits that immediately

after charge sheet was filed, he had filed criminal petition

V Keefe;-e this Court in Crl.P.No.4842/2009 {D.D.9.12.2009]. In

“*1

-3-

Court observes that the allegation of illegal activity

in 1st petitioners premises on .

respondents after getting information of

iiiegality and irregularity in petitio:ners_—premises’

raid after obtaining warrantf as the.,.Governnient_Header’

tried to substantiate before Court;’– to be
concocted. It is respondents while
conducting the raid has_not_ to seize the
money used aJl.eged_act used for the
game like They appear to have
seized otherlarticie from the premises

of petitioner without” “ju:s’ti’fsication.

The <'–$n'ti.r_e__yexercise of respondents 2 to 6 in this

but an act of extortion by respondents 2

t'oi.6' gratification and the conduct of 1st

respondenthin not looking into the complaint of 2nd petitioner

riated 19.9.2009 and not conducting an enquiry into the

and not taking any action in this behalf further

it "strengthens the contention that he is also supportive of that.

Therefore, this Court strongly note that the entire conduct of

'*1

-9-

respondents 2 to 6 does not infuse any confidence ‘this

Court about the legitimacy oi’ raid conducted by the_ti_”i.onj;!

petitioner premises on 16.09.2009.

11. However, it suffice to say

State Government shall hold 4_enqu1’ry0 into tleei *’

conducted by respondents Ir§~_thg..V-iprerrflses of
petitioner and submit’ report findings of
such enquiry and actionpgtaken 2 to 6 in
this behalf a_§id”‘s_ubn1iit court within 3
months dated 16.09.2009
involving’ in fact several such instances

have aisollllcsrne to._the”11o€ice of this Court by way of writ

})etiti’onsA,’ where’ii–1.s_e_rious allegations are made against the

‘p:t)’l’iC€ rig12t’frorn_’Constable to that of Commissioner of Police

‘cofiauc’fing: raids on these clubs in the guise of

‘V controllinghalleged illegai and irregular activity conducted in

such. clubs which are more in the nature of extortion. The

lg-{orne secretary is directed to issue necessary guidelines

“regarding the procedure to be followed by the officer before

conducting such raid and the nature of materials to be

Q ‘*1

– 19-

seized in such raid. The Home Secretary should also

nominate a designated officer to receive comp1aints”*aga_.ir1st

the excesses committed by the police in the guisclofll .

to monitor the same. _

12. With these observations

petition is disposed of. While disposing of l’ V

the Home Secretary is also to-.ppsuitablyinstruct its
officers not to take either against the
petitioners or pe:fso.ns vghici in bringing to
the notice illegal::.hi.ghlhan(led behaviour of
police to send a copy of this
order to ‘Horne proper implementation of

direcftion;~ issuedin this order with reference to holding of

.enqni1ylagpai.nstrespondent 2 to 6 and to submit his report

time and aiso to implement other

directions. “V “V W

35/23
Judge”

…_Nd/v