The magisterial inquiry into the police firing during an anti-Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) protest in Mangaluru on December 19, 2019 will be completed by March 24, Udupi Deputy Commissioner and district magistrate G. Jagadeesha, who is conducting the inquiry, informed the High Court of Karnataka on Monday.
A submission in this regard was made by the Advocate-General before a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Abhay Shreeniwas Oka and Justice Hemant Chandangoudar during the hearing on a PIL petition.
In his affidavit, Mr. Jagadeesha said that in response to a public notice issued on the court’s direction, asking the public to submit video footages of the incident, one person had given a compact disc and the police submitted a pen drive containing video clips. Another pen drive, submitted by a person, containing video clips from social media was rejected as it was not possible to ascertain its genuineness, the affidavit stated.
Meanwhile, Mangaluru City Police Commissioner Harsha P.S., in his affidavit, said no mediapersons had submitted video footages despite a request made through the Department of Information and the Mangaluru City Corporation has informed the police that there was no CCTV cameras installed in and around the place of incident.
However, Dr. Harsha said that the police have seized 20 digital video records from CCTVs cameras installed in private shops and establishments in and around the place of incident and the same were reported to a magistrate court in Mangaluru, which later permitted it to transfer to the Criminal Investigation Department (CID), which took over probe from the city police.
On the actions taken on complaints lodged against the police, the Commissioner said that in many cases endorsement was given that their complaints were tagged to the original complaint registered by the police themselves. However, in a few instances, the complaints were closed following initial inquiry. The Bench said that prima facie the two complaints — one related to the alleged video shooting by some persons in a hospital where some of the accused injured in the incident were being treated, and another by a woman alleging assault on her husband by the police — could not have been closed without registering First Information Reports.
However, the Bench said that action of the police appears to be correct in tagging many of the complaints related to the incident to the main FIR registered in this connection. As petitioner’s counsel wanted to file response to the Commissioner’s affidavit, the Bench adjourned further hearing till March 17.
