Karnataka high court has once again pulled up Whitefield police for interfering in a civil

Karnataka high court has once again pulled up Whitefield police for interfering in a civil

The sharp remarks came Monday while hearing a petition filed by Nanjamma and her two daughters

In another case, a coordinate bench imposed Rs 3 lakh in costs on Whitefield police for their action against KN Mohan Reddy, a witness in a case.

The judge observed that the police station has acquired a “nefarious reputation” in matters coming before the court. Making it clear that police cannot step into disputes over possession or property rights when the matter is already before a civil court, Justice Govindaraj said: “When there are civil disputes which are pending, it is not for police to interfere. Nanjamma and her daughters told the court that Whitefield police had acted at Poornima’s instance and demolished the disputed wall despite civil proceedings being pending.

Bengaluru: Karnataka high court has once again pulled up Whitefield police for interfering in a civil dispute, with Justice Suraj Govindaraj warning the station against repeating such conduct. The sharp remarks came Monday while hearing a petition filed by Nanjamma and her two daughters, who questioned the alleged demolition of a compound wall by Whitefield police at the instance of one Poornima, despite civil court proceedings pending over the property. The judge did not mince words about the station’s track record either. “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 police station Darkfield police station instead of Whitefield police station,” he observed. Monday’s proceedings are the third recent instance in which Whitefield police have come under the high court’s scanner for alleged overreach. In the latest case, the dispute centred on a compound wall over which both sides claimed rights and possession.

Justice Govindaraj had earlier pulled up the station over its failure to provide CCTV footage to a petitioner who had alleged harassment by police. The court noted that police had proceeded against him even before the expiry of the two-day period granted to him to appear before cops.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *