IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.55694 OF 2014 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
M/S. FLEURDELIS TECHNOLOGIES PVT LTD. NO.440A, 4TH PHASE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL ESTATE BANGALORE-560 058.
REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI BHAVANI SHANKAR CHERUKURI S/O. KANAKACHARYULU CHERUKURI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI M.M. SWAMY, ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS M.S. BUILDING VIDHANA VEEDHI BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY INFANTRY ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.
3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CYBER POLICE STATION PALACE ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.
4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RAJGOPAL NAGAR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE-560 058.
5. MR. RIAZ AHMED BASHEER S/O. MR. BASHEER AHMED, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.302, EMKAY RESIDENCY, NO.23, 3RD CROSS, 2ND MAIN, DINNUR, R.T. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI Y.D. HARSHA, ADDL. GOVT. ADV. FOR R1 TO R4; SRI K. SRIKANTH PATIL, ADV. FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-1 TO R-4 TO INITIATE INVESTIGATION / ACTION AS PER LAW BASED ON THE COMPLAINTS OF THE PETITIONER DTD.21.8.2012, 16.4.2013, 4.7.2013 & 19.8.2013 VIDE ANNEXURES-B, C, D & E AND TAKE SUITABLE ACTION AGAINST THE R-5 AND HIS ASSOCIATES.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri M.M. Swamy, learned counsel for petitioner. Sri Y.D. Harsha, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents No.1 to 4 and Sri K. Srikanth Patil, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
2. The writ petition is admitted for hearing.
With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for a direction to respondent Nos.1 to 4 to investigate the complaints submitted by the petitioner against respondent No.5 and take suitable action in accordance with law.
4. When the matter was taken up for consideration today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in pursuance to the complaints made by the petitioner against respondent No.5, charge sheet has already been filed against him.
5. In view of the aforesaid submission, nothing survives for consideration in this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST