IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF MAY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE REVIEW PETITION NOs.79 OF 2019 AND 104 OF 2019 in W.P.Nos.53045-46 of 2018 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
M T KARIAPPA S/O LATE M A THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ADVOCATE AND NOTARY PONNAMPET-571217 KODAGU DISTRICT.
… PETITIONER (BY MR. VIKAS M., ADV. FOR MR. SACHIN B S ADV.) AND:
1. SMT PUSHAPAVATHI W/O LATE PUTTACHAR AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/O NEAR MANASA MEDICAL MAIN ROAD ARUVATHAKLU GONIKOPPAL VIRAJPET KODAGU DISTRICT-571213 MADIKERI.
2. G P UDAYA S/O LATE G K PUTTACHAR AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS OCC:PROPRIETOR JEWELLERY NEAR MANASA MEDICAL MAIN ROAD ARUVATHAKLU GONIKOPPAL VIRAJPET KODAGU DISTRICT-571213 MADIKERI.
3. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA SECRETRIAT OFFICE BANGALORE-560001.
4. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME AFFAIRS VIDHAN SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001.
5. THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNOR GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA RAJ BHAVAN ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001.
6. THE DIRECTOR AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA NRUPATUNGA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 001.
7. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KODAGU DISTRICT KODAGU - 571 213.
8. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE SOUTHERN RANGE MYSORE.
9. THE POLICE CIRCLE INSPECTOR GONIKOPPALU KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 213.
10. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE VIRAJPET SUB-DIVISION VIRAJPET - 571 213.
11. THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR GONIKOPPALU MADAKERI DISTRICT - 571 213.
(BY MR. HANUMANTHAPPA B HARAVI GOWDAR ADV. FOR R1 & R2) … RESPONDENTS THESE REVIEW PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING THIS HON’BLE COURT TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 23.01.2019 PASSED IN W.P NOS.53045-46/2018 (GM-POLICE), ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU AND ETC.
THESE REVIEW PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Vikas M. for Mr.Sachin B.S., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.Hanumanthappa B. Haravi Gowdar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and 2.
Mr.S.Rachaiah, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent Nos.3 to 11.
Petitions are admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same are heard finally.
2. These petitions are filed seeking review of the order dated 23.01.2019 passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.53045-46/2018 (Gm-Police).
3. By the aforesaid order, the writ petitions filed by the respondents was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to take action on the complaint, which was submitted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 before the police authorities.
4. When the matters were taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an Advocate who has put in 25 years of practice and was not impleaded as a party in the writ petition. It is further submitted that on misconception of the order passed by this Court, police has initiated an enquiry against the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 submitted that the police is discharging its statutory obligation.
5. I have considered the submissions made on both the sides and have perused the record. The constitutional Bench of Supreme Court in the case of ‘LALITA KUMARI VS GOVT.OF U.P.& ORS’, (2014) 2 SCC 1 has held that whenever a complaint is made with regard to commission of a non-cognizable offence, the police is under an obligation to enquire into the complaint and to register the First Information Report. The Supreme Court has also mentioned in para 120.6 of the aforesaid decision the guidelines, in which the police authorities should conduct the preliminary enquiry before registration of the First Information Report. It is pertinent to mention here that in the instant case, this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the merits of the averments made in the complaint, which has been filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2. Needless to state that the police authorities shall take into account all the aspects of the matter during the course of the enquiry and shall take suitable action in accordance with law. Once again, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the averments contained in the complaint made by respondent Nos.1 and 2.
With the aforesaid clarification, the review petitions filed by the petitioner is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE SS