IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.2037 OF 2016 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
M/S. BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED, A PUBLIC SECTOR UNDERTAKING BHARAT BHAVAN, NO.1 & 2, BALLARD ESTATE, MUMBAI – 400 001.
BY ITS TERRITORY MANAGER, MR.RAJEEV KUMAR (RETAIL).
(BY SRI.KUMAR N.J., ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS HOME SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE – 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE POLICE COMMISSIONER, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE – 576 001.
3. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TILAK NAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE – 560 041, KARNATAKA.
… PETITIONER 4. B.G.ARUNKUMAR, S/O B.N.GOPAL, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, PROP.M/S.ADVAITA, TAVAREKERE VILLAGE, BANGALORE – 560 076.
...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1 TO 3; SRI.BRIJESH PATIL FOR SRI.P.N.HEGDE, ADVs. FOR R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO R-3 TO REGISTER FIR IN RESPECT OF THE COMPLAINT DATED 12.01.2016 VIDE ANNEXURES – P & Q LODGED BY THE PETITIONER AND PROVIDE POLICE PROTECTION TO RETAIL OUTLET OF PETITIONER SITUATED AT NO.12, JAYANAGAR, 4TH BLOCK, BANGALORE – 560 011 AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Mr. Kumar N.J. learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Mr. Vijaykumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Mr. Brijesh Patil, learned counsel for Sri. P.N. Hegde, learned counsel for Respondent No.4.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned Counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
2. In this writ petition, petitioner, inter alia, seeks a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents 1 to 3 to register FIR in respect of complaint dated 12.01.2016 lodged by the petitioner and provide police protection to retail outlet of the petitioner.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that action on the complaint dated 12.01.2016 has already been taken and the petitioner has been informed that the complaint does not disclose commission of any cognizable offence. It is further pointed out that the petitioner has already approached the Arbitrator with regard to its grievance.
In view of the aforesaid submission and in the facts of the case, petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to take recourse to such other remedy as may be available to it under the law.
Sd/- JUDGE AN/-