Writ plea against Dinakar, 2 officers dismissed

By Our Special Correspondent

BANGALORE, AUG. 23. The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a writ petition against the Director-General of Police, Mr. C.Dinakar, and two other police officers from a Chickmagalur-based doctor, Mr. C.T.Manjunath, seeking a compensation of Rs. 25 lakhs from them for arresting him on a charge of murdering his wife, Aruna.

Dismissing the petition, Mr. Justice H.L.Dattu of the High Court ordered the petitioner to pay Mr. Dinakar and the two other police officers a sum of Rs. 15,000 as costs of the litigation holding that he (petitioner) had unnecessarily harassed them. The State Government was the first respondent in the case.

The petitioner, who was acquitted by the District and Session Judge, Chickmagalur, on January 13, 1998, had sought the compensation on the ground that the arrest was a violation of his fundamental rights and had caused him deep humiliation. After his acquittal, he had approached the Supreme Court through a writ petition seeking the same relief (compensation). The petition was, however, withdrawn with the permission of the apex court on the ground that the grievance would be taken up before the appropriate forum.

Dr. Manjunath, who has a clinic in Chickmagalur, had been arrested by the Corps of Detectives on a charge of murdering his wife, Aruna, on March 7, 1995. The case had been transferred to the CoD after the local police was found to be tardy in its investigation. At that time, Mr. Dinakar was the Additional Director-General of Police, CoD, and the other two respondents, Mr. Lava Kumar, was a Circle Inspector, and Mr. Sudhakar Hegde, Assistant Commissioner in the Corps.

While dismissing the petition, Mr. Justice Dattu noted that the petitioner had not alleged any instance of torture and violation of human rights and use of any third degree methods against the respondents while he was in police custody. He had only stated that in the guise of investigating the crime, the respondents had paraded him near the banks where he had maintained his accounts and at other public places. Their action had caused him humiliation and affected his professional career.

He pointed out that though the Supreme Court had in cases such as Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. K.Ratna (1986) recognised that "to a man his professional reputation is his most valuable possession", it should also be noted that the reputation or livelihood of a person could be put in jeopardy only by law which "inheres fair procedure". As the case involved the grave offence of murder, it was necessary to arrest the accused to infuse public confidence. Though Mr. Dinakar was heading the CoD at the relevant time and took interest in the investigation entrusted to his establishment and was giving directions to the investigating officer, "that by itself cannot lead to a conclusion that he was instrumental in getting the petitioner arrested through the third respondent". For having sincerely discharged his duties and responsibilities true to his uniform, it could not be said that he had infringed the fundamental rights of the petitioner.

The judge also observed that many unscrupulous litigants were adopting dubious methods to harass honest and sincere police officers. The threat of litigation would demoralise the honest and sincere officers.

Mr. Dinakar had argued the case himself before the court while opposing the petition.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Southern States
Previous : Sarvodaya plan to reform brigand
Next     : City police website becomes more user-friendly