Jarkiholi case: Magistrate court orders probe against city police commissioner

Kamal Panth, DCP Anucheth and Cubbon Park PI move HC challenging magistrate’s order

November 24, 2021 09:42 pm | Updated November 25, 2021 04:48 am IST - Bengaluru

Kamal Panth, Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City. File

Kamal Panth, Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru City. File

A magistrate court in the city on Tuesday ordered investigation against City Police Commissioner Kamal Pant, Deputy Commissioner of Police (Central) M.N. Anucheth and Cubbon Park Police Inspector Maruty B. for allegedly delaying registration of First Information Report (FIR) in the CD scandal allegedly involving former Minister Ramesh Jarkiholi.

All the three officers on Wednesday moved the High Court challenging the legality of Tuesday’s direction of the magistrate court to the Cubbon Park Police to register a FIR against them and submit a report after conducting investigation into the allegations made in a private complaint.

The VIII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru City, on November 23 had ordered registration of FIR against the three officers based on the private complaint registered by one Adarsh Iyer, a social activist, on April 7, 2021. The complainant had filed the private complaint before the magistrate after the police had not acted on his complaint against the three officers.

It was alleged in the private complaint that the three officers have failed to register a FIR against Mr. Jarkiholi based on a complaint lodged by one Dinesh Kallahalli, also a social activist, on March 2, 2021, alleging that the then minister had sexually harassed a women.

Though the private complaint was lodged on April 7, 2021, the magistrate court could not take it up for hearing due to restrictions in the functioning of the courts due to the pandemic.

The three officers, in their petition filed before the High Court through advocate P. Prasanna Kumar, have explained that they have not disobeyed the law in not registering FIR based on Mr. Kallahalli’s complaint. They have pointed out in the petition that investigation was carried out by the police as per the apex court’s guideline by treating Mr. Kallahalli’s complaint as a petition as it lacked sufficient information to register an FIR and by taking cognisance of offence.

Stating that Mr. Kallahalli could not provide sufficient material to lodge an FIR despite sufficient opportunities given to him, the officers have also pointed out in the petition that FIR was registered on March 26 based on the complaint lodged by the victim herself.

0 / 0
Sign in to unlock member-only benefits!
  • Access 10 free stories every month
  • Save stories to read later
  • Access to comment on every story
  • Sign-up/manage your newsletter subscriptions with a single click
  • Get notified by email for early access to discounts & offers on our products
Sign in

Comments

Comments have to be in English, and in full sentences. They cannot be abusive or personal. Please abide by our community guidelines for posting your comments.

We have migrated to a new commenting platform. If you are already a registered user of The Hindu and logged in, you may continue to engage with our articles. If you do not have an account please register and login to post comments. Users can access their older comments by logging into their accounts on Vuukle.