The Karnataka High Court on Monday pulled up the Whitefield Police for meddling in a civil dispute [Nanjamma v State of Karnataka].
Justice Suraj Govindaraj warned that action would be ordered against the concerned police personnel if they were found interfering in such civil disputes again.
"When there are civil disputes which are pending, it is not for the police to interfere. The police having chosen to interfere they are directed not to do so in the future ... The Respondent 7 police station (Whitefield Police Station) is put to notice that such actions will not be resorted to by that police station failing which this Court will have to take appropriate action against the said police station and the officers," the Court said.
It further called upon the Principal Secretary of the State's Home Department and Director General of Police to take necessary action against the cops found responsible for meddling in the civil dispute at hand.
"Respondents 2 and 3 (Home Department Principal Secretary and DGP) are also directed to look into the matter , ascertain, and take necessary action as regard the concerned who have sought to interfere in a civil dispute between the parties by conducting necessary inquiry in that regard," the Court ordered.
Notably, the High Court also recounted that the Whitefield police has already been repeatedly pulled up for other procedural improprieties.
"This particular police station has earned a nefarious reputation in many matters which have come up before this Court. A coordinate bench of this court has also termed the said police station Darkfield police station instead of Whitefield police station," Justice Govindraj observed.
On August 29, another single-judge Bench of the High Court had criticised the Whitefield police station for repeatedly flouting various procedural guidelines and rules governing arrest and other matters, and remarked that the police station should be renamed "Darkfield" police station.
Similarly, on August 27, the Court ordered police officers at the station to pay ₹3 lakh as costs for arresting a man illegally.
The Court today further recalled that the same police station has also been flagged for not keeping CCTVs at the station functional at all times.
"This Court has also dealt with the matters pertaining to the said police station where the CCTV is not functioning for the last 1.5 years on the ground that the UPS not functioning," the High Court noted.
The Court today was dealing with a plea questioning the police's act of demolishing a compound wall at a disputed property site. The police were accused of carrying out this act on the behest of one of the parties to the property dispute.
The Court noted that since both parties claimed to be in possession of injunctions and decrees in their favour, they would have to move the concerned civil courts for relief rather than involving the police.
"Both petitioners and Respondent 8 claim there are decrees that are passed in their favour; it is for them to agitate the same before the appropriate court and not involve the police," the Court said.
It proceeded to close the plea before it, but warned the police not to interfere in civil disputes unless they are expressly ordered to do so by a court of law.
"The above writ petition is disposed directing the respondent police not to intervene unless there is specific direction issued by a Court of competent jurisdiction."
Advocate Ashok T appeared for the petitioners.
Advocate PM Manmohan appeared for a private respondent (legal opponent of petitioners in the civil dispute).