IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.19713 OF 2014 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
Chandraprakash S/o Davar Ramji Aged about 38 years Prop: Bhagyalakshmi Bankers Pete Beedi, Malavalli Mandya District – 571 401.
… Petitioner (By Sri. K. B. Lokanath, Advocate- absent) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka By its Secretary Vidhana Soudha Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Director General of Police And Inspector General of Police Nrupathunga Road Bengaluru – 560 001.
3. The Superintendent of Police Mandya District Mandya – 571 401.
4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police, Mandya District Mandya – 571 401.
5. The Circle Inspector Police Station East Mandya – 571 401.
(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 R1 to R3 to entrust the case of the petitioner to any other investigation agency to investigate the offences registered by the 5th respondent against the petitioner vide Annexures-B, C and D, and etc.
This Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER None for the petitioner when the matter was taken up at 4.05 p.m.
Sri. Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
In this petition, petitioner inter alia has prayed for a writ of Mandamus seeking a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 3 to entrust the case of the petitioners to any other Investigating Agency as well as writ of mandamus directing respondent Nos. 4 and 5 to follow the circular issued by Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police dated 19.02.2008.
2. When the matter was taken up today, learned Additional Government Advocate while inviting the attention of this Court to the objections filed on behalf of the respondents submitted that in relation to the incident in respect of which the complaint was made by the petitioner, the matter was investigated and the petitioner was found to be an accused in respect of the aforesaid offence and Crime No.20/2012 was registered against him along with other co-accused persons and charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner and the case is pending for trial.
3. In view of the stand taken by the respondents in the objections, which has not been controverted by the petitioner, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-