IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.13680/2017 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
K.M.RAVINDRA, S/O. LATE B.K.MUNIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUMBANA AGRAHARA, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, KADUGODU POST, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BAGNALORE – 560 067. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.HANUMANTHAPPA.B.HARAVI GOWDAR, ADV.) AND:
1. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE AND DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BANGALORE, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 001.
3. THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, HOSAKOTE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT – 67.
4. SRI KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE MUNIKULLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KUMBANA AGRAHARA, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, KADUGODU POST, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BAGNALORE – 560 067.
5. SRI VENKATESH, S/O KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KUMBANA AGRAHARA, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, KADUGODU POST, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BAGNALORE – 560 067.
6. SRIDEVI, W/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KUMBANA AGRAHARA, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, KADUGODU POST, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BAGNALORE – 560 067.
7. HARISH BABU, S/O. KRISHNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KUMBANA AGRAHARA, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, KADUGODU POST, K.R.PURAM, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BAGNALORE – 560 067.
8. MURALI, S/O. MUNIVENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KURUDU SONNENAHALLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, VIRGONAGAR POST, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRCT, BANGALORE – 560 067.
9. VADARAJU, S/O. LATE MUNIYAPPA, AGEDA BOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KURUDU SONNENAHALLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK, VIRGONAGAR POST, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRCT, BANGALORE – 560 067. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT PRATHIMA HONNAPURA, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3, NOTICE TO R4 TO R9 IS D/W V/O DT:30.03.2017) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-3 SHALL REGISTER A CRIMINAL CASE AGAINST R-4 TO R-9 UNDER GOONDA ACT WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT AND DIRECT R-3 TO REGISTER A CRIMINAL CASE ON THE COMPLAINT DATED 1.4.2007 VIDE ANNEXURE-C WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Learned Government Advocate to accept notice for respondents No.1 to 3 and file memo of appearance in four weeks. Considering the nature of disposal, notice to respondents No.4 to 9 is not necessary.
2. The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct the third respondent to register a criminal case against respondents No.4 to 9 under the Goonda Act. The petitioner is also seeking direction to the respondents to register a criminal case on the complaint dated 01.04.2007 said to have been filed by the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that respondents No.4 to 9 are indulging in criminal activities which is to the detriment of the petitioner and therefore, the action as sought in the petition is required to be initiated.
3. Having taken note of the grievance putforth by the petitioner, a perusal of the petition papers would disclose that the complaint said to have been filed by the petitioner is dated 01.04.2007 and the endorsement in that regard has been issued by the Jurisdictional Police. However, the parties had been litigating in the Civil Court subsequent thereto and the suit in O.S.No.1133/2009 was disposed of only on 09.07.2015.
4. It is no doubt true that the suit filed by the respondent No.4 was dismissed and the petitioner herein was the defendant No.1 to the said suit. Even if that be the position, when such civil litigations were pending between the parties and has thereafter been disposed of, only if there are any specific instances of the criminal activities by respondents No.4 to 9, a complaint to the Jurisdictional Police could be made by the petitioner and if such complaint is filed, the Jurisdictional Police would take note of the same and act in accordance with law. A consideration of the prayer to initiate action against respondents No.4 to 9 under the Goonda Act would not arise in a matter of the present nature, unless it is indicated that the nature of activities of respondents No.4 to 9 is found to be detrimental to public order by the Law Enforcing Authority, so as to seek for preventive detention and not at the instance of the petitioner.
5. Therefore, reserving liberty to the petitioner to file necessary complaint, if the need arises for the same, the petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST