IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.11290 OF 2018 (GM - POLICE) BETWEEN:
G. R. Suryanarayan, S/o. Late Rangaswamachar, Aged about 48 years, Proprietor of Subramanya Jeweler Works, Behind Kalpana Hotel, Taha Complex, Hiriyur Town, Chitradurga District – 577 598.
… Petitioner (By Sri. K.B. Lokanath, Advocate (Absent)) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka, By its Secretary, Home Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bengaluru – 560 001.
2. The Director General of Police, And Inspector General of Police, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru – 560 001.
3. Superintendent of Police, Tumakuru – 572 103.
4. The Circle Inspector, Koratagere Police Station, Tumakuru District – 572 103.
(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 consider the representations dated 09.03.2018 to take action against the staff of R4 for their illegal act against the petitioner vide Annexures - B, C and D respectively and etc., This Petition coming on for Orders, this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER None for the petitioner.
Sri. Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.
Records perused.
2. In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
“a) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the representations dated 09.03.2018 to take action against the staff of 4th respondent for their illegal act against the petitioner are produced at Annexures-‘B’, ‘C’ and ‘D’ respectively.
b) Issue a Writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the 4th respondent Police Inspector, Central Crime Branch, Mysuru to follow the Circular issued by the 2nd respondent dated 19.02.2008 in No.JC/S.H.R.C/2007 is produced at Annexure-A.
c) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the 4th respondent not to disturb the petitioner to open the door of the shop for his daily business.
d) Any other appropriate writ or order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case including an order as to costs.”
3. From perusal of the averments made in the petition, it appears that petitioner is the Proprietor of Subramanya Jeweler Works in Hiriyur town, Chitradurga District. It is averred that on 08.03.2018, one Manjunath, namely, Sub-Inspector and his staff entered the shop of the petitioner and brought one unknown person along with them to allege that the petitioner has purchased stolen item from the aforesaid unknown person. Thereupon, respondent No.4 has neither issued any notice under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 nor followed the guidelines issued by respondent No.2. It appears that petitioner has submitted a representation to respondent No. 3.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that suitable action on the representation shall be taken, if not already taken.
5. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider and decide the representation submitted by the petitioner, if not already decided by a speaking order within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-