IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA WRIT PETITION No.1807/2015(GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
KANIYARA SEVA SAMAJA ® REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY SRI RAMASHEVAKA K, SO.LATE M. KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, NO.99/2B, 3RD CROSS, RAJENDRANAGAR, MYSORE-570 007.
... PETITIONER (BY SRI K. S. NARESH SANTHOSH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, MYSORE CITY, MIRZA ROAD, NAZARBAD, MYSORE-570 010.
3. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR, N R POLICE STATION, RAJENDRANAGAR, MYSORE-570 007.
... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIJAYKUMAR A PATIL, AGA FOR R1 TO R3) **** THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT R-2 & 3 TO INVESTIGATE INTO THE MATTER AND SUBMIT PERIODICAL REPORTS BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THERE SHALL BE A CHANGE IN THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER IN THIS BEHALF.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
O R D E R The petitioner filed the present writ petition for a writ of mandamus directing the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to investigate into the matter and submit periodical reports before this Court or in the alternative, there shall be a change in the Investigating Officer and direct the Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to take action against the accused persons morefully mentioned in the FIR.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that, it is a society registered under the Registration of Societies Act and functioning since 1942. The Society is having its premises at Site No.L/10, Pensioners Block, Rajendranagar, Mysore, measuring 75 feet x 12 feet and its members are running a small school in the said premises. Due to trespassing incidents and consequent disturbances caused by local miscreants to the society and its members, the petitioner was forced to file O.S. No.2032/2011 before the V Addl. I Civil Judge (JMFC), Mysore for Permanent Injunction. After contest, the suit came to be decreed on 25.3.2013. However, trespassing and disturbances and disputes arising thereof have not stopped and therefore the petitioner was forced to file complaint before the jurisdictional Police. The jurisdictional Police registered Crime No.200/13 for the offences punishable under sections 448 and 457 r/w 34 of IPC. But the respondent authorities have not taken action against the miscreants and they are colluding with them and therefore petitioner is before this Court for the reliefs sought for.
3. Sri Vijayakumar A. Patil, learned AGA for respondents contended that the very prayer sought for by the petitioner in the present writ petition is not maintainable unless and until the petitioner questions/challenges the ‘B’ report filed by the jurisdictional Police after investigation as long back as on 2.4.2014. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the ‘B’ report, he has to approach the appropriate competent Court. The said submissions are placed on record.
4. Having considered the grounds urged in the writ petition and having heard the learned AGA, it is not in dispute that on the basis of the complaint made by the petitioner, the jurisdictional Police promptly registered Criminal Case in Crime No.200/2013 under the provisions of Sections 448, 457 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and proceeded to investigate the matter. After detailed investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the ‘B’ report on 2.4.2014. Admittedly, the petitioner has not challenged the said report. Since the said ‘B’ report is still existing, the prayer sought in the present writ petition cannot be considered. The petitioner has not made out any prima facie case to direct the respondents to investigate the matter and submit the report as the investigation already over and the report is filed. Therefore, prayer sought cannot be granted at this stage, in exercise of power under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the ‘B’ report, if he is so advised and if permissible in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE Gss/-