IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.53446 OF 2018 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
Arvind Eshwarlal Son of S.Eshwarlal, Aged about 42 years, No.106, Raheja Mansion, 13th Milton Street, Cooke Town, Bengaluru-560 005.
(By Sri.Shodhana Babu A.M, Advocate) AND:
… Petitioner 1. The Commissioner of Police No.1, Infantry Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
2. The Cyber Crime Police Station Infantry Road, Bengaluru-560 001.
(By Sri.Vijay Kumar A. Patil, AGA) … Respondents This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct the respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 28.08.2018 vide Annexure-D made by the petitioner herein to the respondent No.1 and consequently direct the respondent No.2 to file First Information Report and conduct investigation based on the complaint dated 22.08.2018 vide Annexure-A.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.Shodhana Babu A.M, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for both parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for the following reliefs:
“(i) Issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order or direction directing the Respondent No.1 to consider the representation dated 28.08.2018 (Annexure-D) made by the Petitioner herein to the 1st Respondent and consequently direct the Respondent No.2 to file First Information Report and conduct investigation based on the Complaint dated 22.08.2018 (Annexure-A) and (ii) Grant such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the fact and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice.”
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed a complaint before the jurisdictional police disclosing the commission of cognizable offence and the aforesaid authority is under a legal obligation to register the FIR.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that suitable action in accordance with law shall be taken on the complaint, which has been submitted by the petitioner.
5. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the jurisdictional police – respondent No.2 – The Cyber Crime Police Station, Bengaluru, to examine the complaint submitted by the petitioner in the light of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘LALITA KUMARI VS. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ORS.’, (2014) 2 SCC 1, specially in the light of observations made in paragraph No.120.6 of the report. Needless to state that if the matter falls within the purview of the matters as prescribed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid paragraph, respondent No.2 shall conduct preliminary inquiry before proceeding further in the matter.
It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Sd/- JUDGE dn/-