U. SHARANAPPA Vs. KARNATAKA STATE HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND RANGA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is before this Court assailing the order dated 25.07.2012 passed by the first respondent in Case No. 8308/2010. The said order is impugned at Annexure -D to the petition. The petitioner was working as a Police Inspector at Tarikere Police Station, Chickmagalur District, from the year 2009. Thereafter he has been posted in different places. While he was serving in Tarikere Police Station, one Khaleel, S/o. Abdul Lathif had lodged a complaint against the second respondent for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 420 and 506 of IPC. According to the petitioner, the said compliant was registered in Crime No. 38/2010 and investigation was conducted in that regard as per law. The second respondent however had approached the Human Rights Commission -first respondent stating that the human right of the second respondent has been violated. The same was registered in Case No. 8308/2010. The first respondent by its order dated 25.07.2012 has arrived at the conclusion that the human right of the second respondent has been violated by the petitioner and in that regard, has directed payment of Rs. 25,000/ - as compensation to the second respondent and it has been left open to the Government to recover the same from the petitioner. Further, the first respondent has also recommended that the disciplinary proceedings be initiated against the petitioner. It is in that regard, the petitioner is before this Court.

(2.) THE second respondent has filed the objection statement and has sought to oppose the petition. The nature of the contentions put forth by the second respondent before the first respondent is sought to be reiterated and it is contended that the first respondent was justified in its conclusion and the order does not call for interference. Learned counsel for the second respondent has also relied on the decision of this Court in the case of S.B. Chabbi vs. Karnataka State Human Rights Commission, Bangalore and another [ : 2013 (4) KCCR 3232].

(3.) HOWEVER , what is necessary to be noticed is the contention put forth by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner that if ultimately the petitioner is exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings, the recommendation made herein should not be held against the petitioner for his future prospects in service.