High Court Rebukes Police for Overstepping in Civil Matters
In a stern message to the Whitefield police, the Karnataka High Court on Monday expressed disapproval of their involvement in a civil dispute, emphasizing the separation of duties between law enforcement and civil adjudication. The case, Nanjamma v State of Karnataka, was overseen by Justice Suraj Govindaraj, who issued a cautionary stance towards the police for overstepping their authority.
Warnings Issued to Police Personnel
Justice Govindaraj firmly stated, “When there are civil disputes which are pending, it is not for the police to interfere.” He further warned that any recurrence of such actions by the Whitefield Police Station would lead to appropriate measures being taken against the officers involved. The court highlighted the need for the police to refrain from engaging in civil disputes, which are under the purview of civil courts.
Directive for Action Against Involved Officers
The Court also instructed the Principal Secretary of the Home Department and the Director General of Police to investigate the matter and take necessary action against the officers involved in meddling with the civil dispute. Justice Govindaraj noted, “Respondents 2 and 3 are also directed to look into the matter, ascertain, and take necessary action regarding the concerned who have sought to interfere in a civil dispute between the parties by conducting necessary inquiry in that regard.”
Recurring Issues with Whitefield Police Station
This is not the first time the Whitefield police have come under scrutiny. The High Court recounted the station’s history of procedural missteps, with Justice Govindaraj recalling a previous incident where a coordinate bench of the court referred to the Whitefield police station as the “Darkfield police station” due to its notorious reputation.
On August 29, a single-judge Bench of the High Court criticized the station for repeatedly violating procedural guidelines, suggesting that it should be renamed “Darkfield” police station. Moreover, on August 27, officers were ordered to pay ₹3 lakh in costs for the illegal arrest of an individual.
More Read
Non-Functional CCTVs and Other Lapses
The High Court also pointed out the ongoing issue of non-functional CCTV cameras at the station, with the excuse being a malfunctioning UPS, which has persisted for the past 1.5 years.
Case Background and Court’s Decision
The current plea involved allegations against the police for demolishing a compound wall at a disputed property, an action reportedly taken at the behest of one party involved in the property dispute. The court noted that both parties claimed possession of injunctions and decrees in their favor, and directed them to resolve the matter through appropriate civil courts instead of involving the police.
The court concluded by disposing of the writ petition, directing the police to abstain from intervening in civil disputes unless explicitly ordered by a competent court. “The above writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent police not to intervene unless there is a specific direction issued by a Court of competent jurisdiction,” the Court stated.
More Read
Advocate Ashok T represented the petitioners, while Advocate PM Manmohan appeared for a private respondent.
