The Karnataka High Court has issued a strong admonition to the Whitefield Police Station for its involvement in a civil dispute, specifically concerning the demolition of a compound wall on a contested property. Justice Suraj Govindaraj, presiding over the matter of Nanjamma v State of Karnataka, underscored that police intervention in civil disputes is impermissible unless a specific directive is issued by a competent court of law. The Court warned that any future interference by the Whitefield Police in such matters would result in appropriate action against the station and its officers.
During the proceedings, the Court observed that both the petitioners and a private respondent claimed to possess injunctions and decrees in their favour regarding the disputed property. Justice Govindaraj clarified that it is incumbent upon the parties to agitate their claims before the appropriate civil courts, rather than involving the police in what are fundamentally civil contentions. The writ petition, which challenged the police's action of demolishing a compound wall at the disputed site, was subsequently disposed of with a clear directive to the police not to intervene in civil disputes without explicit judicial instruction.
Whitefield Police Station's 'Nefarious' Reputation Highlighted
Justice Govindaraj critically noted that the Whitefield Police Station has garnered a "nefarious reputation" in numerous cases brought before the High Court. The Court recalled that a coordinate Bench had previously referred to the station as "Darkfield" police station, rather than Whitefield, due to its repeated procedural improprieties. This observation underscores a pattern of concern regarding the station's conduct.
The High Court further recounted specific instances where the Whitefield Police Station had faced judicial censure. On August 29, another single-judge Bench had criticised the station for consistently flouting various procedural guidelines and rules pertaining to arrest and other operational matters. Similarly, on August 27, the Court had ordered police officers from the same station to pay a sum of ₹3 lakh as costs for illegally arresting an individual. These instances collectively point to a systemic issue within the police station's functioning.
Moreover, the Court highlighted concerns regarding the operational integrity of the station's infrastructure. It was noted that the CCTV cameras at the Whitefield Police Station had been non-functional for approximately 1.5 years, with the stated reason being a malfunctioning Uninterrupted Power Supply (UPS). Such a prolonged period of non-functionality raises questions about transparency and accountability in police operations, particularly in light of directives for mandatory CCTV installation in police stations.
Directives Issued to Home Department and DGP
In light of the police's unwarranted interference in the civil dispute, the Karnataka High Court issued specific directives to senior state authorities. The Principal Secretary of the State's Home Department (Respondent 2) and the Director General of Police (Respondent 3) have been instructed to investigate the matter thoroughly. The Court mandated that these authorities ascertain the individuals responsible for interfering in the civil dispute between the parties and take necessary action following a proper inquiry. This directive aims to ensure accountability and prevent similar occurrences in the future.
Advocate Ashok T represented the petitioners in the case, while Advocate PM Manmohan appeared for a private respondent, who was the legal opponent of the petitioners in the civil dispute. The Court's firm stance reinforces the clear demarcation between civil and criminal jurisdictions and the imperative for law enforcement agencies to operate strictly within their legal mandates.