State govt opposes CBI probe into DySP Ganapathy’s suicide
New Delhi: The Karnataka government opposed before the Supreme Court a plea for a CBI probe into the suicide of deputy superintendent of police M K Ganapathy on July 7, last year.
Responding to a petition filed by M K Kushalappa, father of the deceased, the state government maintained that a thorough and in-depth investigation has been carried out and no prudent and reasonable person can term the investigation as either biased or not free and fair.
A bench of Justices Adarsh Kumar Goel and U U Lalit will consider the matter on Monday.
The petitioner had contended that his son, then posted at the office of Inspector General of Police, Madikeri, was being hounded by Congress leader and Minister K J George and other senior officers.
The officer had also made allegations of harassment and ill-treatment by superior officers just before the incident. After his death, the minister had to resign. The suspected police officers were transferred on registration of an FIR on July 19 on an order by a Madekeri court. However, the CID, which investigated the case, under the supervision of the Director General of Police, filed a closure report before a trial court.
The state government defended the Karnataka High Court’s order of October 19, declining a plea for the CBI probe.
“Merely because the final result of the investigation is not to the liking of the petitioner, baseless and reckless allegations have been made,” the state government said in its response filed by advocate Joseph Aristotle.
In view of the hue and cry raised by the opposition leaders in the Karnataka Assembly, the state government also ordered a judicial probe and appointed a Commission of Inquiry headed by former high court judge Justice Keshavanarayan. “It has commenced its functions and inquiry is going on at full speed and the report from the Commission is expected very shortly,” the state government said.
It also contended that the petitioners here, father and brother of the deceased, did not point out any lapse by the investigating agency before the trial court. But just two days before the filing of the investigation report, they had approached the high court.
The state government also pointed out that the Madikeri court had on April 3, this year, allowed the petitioners to continue the prosecution of the case on an application filed under Section 302 of the Criminal Procedure Code. “It is necessary for the petitioners to pursue their remedy before the magistrate…the continuation of the proceedings before this court would amount to pursuing parallel remedy on the same cause of action, which is impermissible in law,” said the state government, seeking direction to dismiss the petition filed by the officer’s father.
