IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION No.1339/2019 (GM POLICE) BETWEEN SMT. JAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, W/O. NARASIMHAMURTHY, R/O. HOUSE SITE NO.68, HOUSE LIST KHATHA NO.370/308, ELYSIUM LAYOUT (ATMAVIDYANAGARA), 4TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND CROSS, ZION STREET, BANGALORE 560077. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI. KRISHNA S VYAS, ADV.) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU 560001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ALI-ASKAR ROAD, BANGALORE 560001.
3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NORTH-EAST ZONE, O/A. NO. 14/1, KODIGEHALLI MAIN ROAD, CQAL LAYOUT, SAHAKARA NAGAR, BANGALORE 560092.
4. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE O/A SAMPIGE HALLI SUB-DIVISION, SAMPIGE HALLI, HEGDENAGAR, BANGALORE-560077.
5. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, KOTHANOOR POLICE STATION, KOTHANUR POST, BANGALORE-560077.
6. RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUR 43 YEARS, S/O MUNISHMAPPA, R.O NO.155, BYRATHI DODDAGUBBI POST, BANGALORE-560077.
7. T R PATRIC, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, S/O T A RATHNAM, R/O NO.198, BASARAJ LAYOUT, BYRATHI DODDAGUBBI, BANGALORE-560077. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAY KUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1-5.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-3 TO 5 AUTHORITIES TO IMMEDIATELY PROTECT THE PETITIONER FROM ANY EXTERNAL AGGRESSION FROM THE 6TH AND 7TH RESPONDENT AND THEIR AGENTS OR ANYBODY CLAIMING OR ACTING UNDER THEM ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned Government accepts notice for R1 to R5.
Taking into account the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent nos. 6 and 7.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for issuance of a writ of mandamus to respondent nos.
3 to 5 to protect the petitioner from any external aggression from respondent nos. 6 and 7 as well as writ of mandamus directing respondent nos., 3 to 5 to register a FIR against respondent nos. 6 and 7 in view of complaints made by the petitioner to aforesaid respondent nos. 3 to 5.
3. When the matter was taken up, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that respondent nos. 6 and 7 are trying to interfere with the possession of the petitioner over the property in question. The lessor of the petitioner has filed a suit in which the order of injunction has been issued against respondent nos. 6 and 7. However, in violation of orders of injunction, respondent nos. 6 and 7 are trying to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property in question by the petitioner.
4. It is further submitted that petitioner has filed a complaint against respondent nos. 6 and 7 before respondent nos. 3 to 5 to take cognizance of offence. However, no action has been taken by respondent- authorities.
5. On the other hand, Government Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent-authorities fairly submits that respondent nos. 3 to 5 would take appropriate action on the complaint submitted by the petitioner in accordance with law.
6. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The Constitution Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ‘LALITHA KUMARI VS. GOVERNMENT OF U.P. & ORS’, AIR 2014 SC 187 wherein it has been held that it is the duty of the Police Officer to register the first information report in case a complaint is made before him disclosing the commission of offence and to take cognizance of offence. In the aforesaid decision in para.111 it has been held as under:
“111. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
(i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
(ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
(iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
(iv)The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
(v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
(vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.”
7. In view of the aforesaid decision, in the facts and circumstances of the case, respondent nos. 3 to 6 shall conduct a preliminary enquiry and if it is found that respondent nos. 6 and 7 have committed a cognizable offence, shall register first information report against them.
8. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the claim of the petitioner.
9. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Sk/-
CT-HR