The Aryavarth Express
Aryavarth (Bengaluru): In a case that has sent shockwaves through the legal fraternity, the High Court has taken an uncompromising stance against a police constable, respondent No. 2, who stands accused of a litany of offenses, including rape, cheating, voluntarily causing hurt, and criminal intimidation. The constable’s alleged actions not only betrayed the trust reposed in him as a law enforcement officer but also constituted a brazen assault on the dignity of the complainant, a vulnerable woman.
The crux of the matter lies in the constable’s alleged continuous sexual exploitation of the complainant from 2019 to 2022, under the guise of a promised marriage that never materialized. When the complainant mustered the courage to report the incidents to the authorities, she encountered a wall of indifference, with her complaints to the police station, the Commissioner of Police, and the Deputy Commissioner of Police falling on deaf ears.
Undeterred, the complainant took the extraordinary step of filing a private complaint before the magistrate’s court, which referred the matter for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Faced with the prospect of legal action, the accused constable sought anticipatory bail from the Sessions Court, which was initially granted but subsequently canceled by the High Court in a landmark order dated July 1, 2022.
Unrelenting in his pursuit of evading justice, the constable resorted to a series of egregious tactics that have drawn the ire of the High Court. He approached the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC, seeking quashing of the proceedings, while deliberately suppressing the order canceling his anticipatory bail. This brazen act of concealment enabled him to secure a stay on the investigation, a stay that was later vacated by the High Court upon discovering the constable’s duplicity.
Even after the High Court’s stern directive to take the constable into custody, he managed to evade arrest for four months, prompting the court to express grave concerns about a potential “protective umbrella” extended to him by the police department due to his affiliation. Faced with the prospect of the Deputy Commissioner of Police being summoned to explain the delay, the constable surrendered before the Trial Court and, through a fresh application, obtained regular bail on June 30, 2023, once again suppressing the crucial orders passed by the High Court.
The High Court, in a scathing judgment, has taken a firm stand against such brazen attempts to subvert the course of justice. Invoking Section 439(2) of the CrPC, the court has canceled the bail granted to the constable, citing his repeated suppression of material facts and indulgence in “fraud on the court.” The judgment underscores the fundamental principle that a litigant who attempts to pollute the stream of justice or approaches the court with “tainted hands” is not entitled to any relief, interim or final.
Drawing upon a catena of judgments from the Supreme Court and its own coordinate benches, the High Court has reiterated the sacrosanct nature of the judicial process and the obligation of litigants to approach the courts with utmost candor and honesty. The judgment emphasizes that the courts must remain vigilant against the abuse of process and ensure that their processes are not exploited by unscrupulous litigants driven by personal gain or malicious intent.
In a stern rebuke, the High Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 1,00,000/- (approximately USD 12,000) on the constable, payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within two weeks. Failure to comply with this directive will result in the recovery of the amount through legal means, underscoring the court’s resolve to deter such misconduct.
Furthermore, the court has directed the Registrar General to file a complaint with the Vidhana Soudha police station against the constable, initiating an investigation into the fraud perpetrated upon the court. This step not only upholds the sanctity of the judicial process but also serves as a potent reminder that no individual, regardless of their position or affiliation, is above the law.
The judgment also casts a critical eye on the role of the prosecution and the Trial Court in failing to scrutinize the constable’s conduct and the suppression of crucial orders. The Director of Prosecution has been instructed to issue a circular or memorandum, mandating Public Prosecutors to disclose to the courts any pending or previous bail applications or orders passed under Section 482 of the CrPC. This measure aims to prevent future occurrences of unscrupulous litigants polluting the stream of justice through concealment or misrepresentation.
