The High Court of Karnataka on Tuesday ordered issue of notices to the State government and Nehal Ganapathy on petitions filed by two senior IPS officers questioning the Madikeri magistrate court’s order for registering an FIR against them in connection with the alleged suicide of Dy.SP M.K. Ganapathy.
The court passed the order on the petitions filed by A.M. Prasad, Additional Director-General of Police (Intelligence), and Pronab Mohanty, Inspector General of Police (Lokayukta Police).
Justice H. Billappa, before whom the petitions were moved with a plea for early hearing, adjourned further hearing till Wednesday, while refusing to pass any interim order in favour of the petitioner-officers at this stage by stating that he would like to hear the arguments on behalf of Ganapthy’s son, Nehal, who had filed the private complaint before the Madikeri court.
Bar’s objection
The judge, in the morning session, agreed to hear the petition in the afternoon session as counsel representing the petitioner-officers cited urgency in hearing the case.
However, in the afternoon, president of the Advocates’ Association, Bengaluru, H.C. Shivaramu, brought to the notice of the judge that advocates have expressed displeasure over the “priority” being given to hear the petitions filed by the police officers as many other petitions, requiring equally urgent hearing, were pending before the court.
Mr. Shivaramu requested the judge to use the “discretionary” power of the court to take up any case on priority basis, while keeping in mind other cases requiring equal urgency.
The judge said he would not take up the matter out-of-turn.
Finally, petitions were taken up for hearing towards evening.
Counsel representing the police officers contended that the Madikeri magistrate court ordered for registration of an FIR without “an application of mind”.
Referring to several verdicts of the Supreme Court, counsel contended that magistrate courts need to assign reason for registration of an FIR while referring the private complaints for investigation. And, in the present case, the FIR was ordered to be registered only based on “submissions” of counsel of the complainant, and “no reason” was cited by the Madikeri magistrate, counsel pointed out.
When the judge adjourned further hearing till Wednesday after ordering issuance of notice to the complainant, counsel for the petitioner-officers requested the court to give priority in further hearing of the case on Wednesday.
However, Justice Billappa, before whom there were 264 cases were listed on Tuesday, said he would follow the “usual” procedure of listing of cases.
He said: “We must also respect the feelings of the Bar…Every conduct of a judge is viewed seriously and also suspiciously. Let us be fair in our attitude…”
