IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.30054 OF 2019 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
SMT. B. N. BHARATHI AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, WIFE OF SRI. NAGARAJA REDDY, D/O. SRI. B. G. NARAYANA REDDY, R/AT DODDANAGAMANGALA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK, BENGALURU-560 100.
(BY SRI. C. SHANKAR REDDY, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER, HOME DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU CITY-560 001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU SOUTH, 8TH BLOCK, NEAR BETHANY SCHOOL, ... PETITIONER KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 034.
4. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION, OPPOSITE CENTRAL JAIL, BENGALURU-560 100.
5. SRI. KISHORE KUMAR B. K. CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PARAPPANA AGRAHARA POLICE STATION, OPPOSITE CENTRAL JAIL, BENGALURU-560 100.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. BALAKRISHNA, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO 5 TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE COMPLAINTS LODGED BY THE PETITIONER AS HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED UNDER ANNEXURE-H TO ANNEXURE-H10 AND FURTHER DIRECT THE POLICE TO GIVE POLICE PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONER AND THE WRIT PETITION SCHEDULE PROPERTY AND INITIATE APPROPRIATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST TRESPASSERS AS INDICATED IN THE ABOVE REFERRED COMPLAINTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri. C. Shankar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. B. Balakrishna, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents.
2. Petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the parties, same is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2 to 5 to give effect to the complaint lodged by the petitioner.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that even though he has made complaint to the concerned Station House Officer disclosing commission of cognizable offence, however, till today no action is taken in the matter.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 submits that suitable action in accordance with law shall be taken.
6. In view of the aforesaid submissions and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of LALITA KUMARI VS. GOVT. OF U.P. ORS. (2014) 2 SCC 1, the petition is disposed of with a direction that the concerned Station House Officer shall carry out the preliminary investigation and if the complaint of the petitioner discloses commission of cognizable offence, shall proceed to deal with the complaint in accordance with law.
7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case.
8. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RD