BENGALURU: Observing that the Station House Officer (SHO) of Amurthahalli police station in Bengaluru city appears to have blown hot and cold, the Karnataka High Court on Wednesday sought an explanation from him as to why an endorsement was issued by closing the complaint. The SHO had termed it to be a non-cognisable report (NCR) at first, when it was filed by businessman Vijay Tata against Union Minister HD Kumaraswamy and former MLC HM Ramesh Gowda, and later the same day, registered an FIR against them invoking charges of extortion and life threat.
Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order after hearing the petition filed by Ramesh Gowda, questioning the legality of the crime by Amruthahalli police, based on the complaint filed by Vijay Tata for allegedly demanding Rs 50 crore for the Channapatna by-election.
Recording the submission of Additional State Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesha, that city police would not take any precipitative action on the complaint till October 29, the next date of hearing, the court said the SHO appears to have blown hot and cold. Therefore, the court has to intervene and get his explanation, the judge added.
Arguing on behalf of the petitioner, senior advocate Prabhuling K Navadagi submitted that the complainant alleged that former chief minister HD Kumaraswamy and the petitioner visited his house for dinner on August 23, 2024, and allegedly demanded Rs 50 crore to meet election expenses. The complaint, dated October 1, was registered as an NCR several days after the alleged incident, and an endorsement was issued by closing it, terming it to be an NCR on October 3.
“We don’t know what happened on that day, the FIR was registered on the very same complaint, making allegations of extortion although a bare reading of the complaint does not disclose the offence. Once the NCR is issued, how can the FIR be registered? Further, the petitioner also filed a complaint against Vijay Tata, but it was not registered by police, saying they will investigate it along with the complaint filed by Tata. Therefore, the SHO has to give an explanation, Navadagi argued.