IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.22297 OF 2016 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
SRI. B. MEGHASHYAM AGE 53 YEARS S/O LATE SRI. C. BADARAYANACHAR MANAGING DIRECTOR INTEGRATED HI-TECH SOFTWARE PARK LTD AND ALSO LOTUS INC INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT CONSULTING GROUP, III FLOOR, ABOVE CITI BANK PRESTIGE MERIDIAN II, M.G. ROAD BANGALORE-560 001.
(By Mr. K. SREEDHAR, ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY BANGALORE-560 001.
3. SRIDHAR K. POOJAR MAJOR POLICE INSPECTOR VYALIKAVAL POLICE STATION BANGALORE-560 003.
… PETITIONER 4. B. HANUMANTHARAYA MAJOR S/O BHEEMAPPA POLICE INSPECTOR BESCOM VIGILANCE HOSAKOTE RESIDENT OF NO.1 "A" BLOCK, 15TH MAIN VASANTHNAGAR BANGALORE-560 052.
5. POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR VYALIKAVAL POLICE STATION BANGALORE-560003.
… RESPONDENTS (By Mr. VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, LEARNED AGA FOR R1, R2 & R5 R3 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED R4 – SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - - -
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the impugned Police notice of the office of the Police Inspector, Vyalikaval Police Station, Bengaluru, dated 9.4.2016 vide Annex-E as the same is illegal, Arbitrary and unsustainable for the alleged recovery of Rs.35,00,000/- from the petitioner by misusing their power and etc.
This Writ Petition coming on for preliminary hearing in ‘B’ group this day, the Court made the following:-
ORDER Sri.K.Sreedhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos1, 2 and 5.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for the following reliefs:
“a. quash by issue of writ of certiorari the impugned police notice bearing No.NIL, of the office of police inspector, Vyalikaval police station, Bengaluru, dated 09.04.2016 vide Annexure-E as the same is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable for the alleged recovery of Rs.35,00,000/- from the petitioner by misusing their power.
b. Issue in the nature of mandamus, directing the 1st and 2nd respondents to hold an enquiry against the 3rd and 4th respondents for misusing their power for recover of money, and against the 4th respondent for not disclosing to the Government obtaining of cheques to the tune of Rs.35,00,000/-. Direct the 3rd respondent to return company papers.
c. Pass such other order/s as may be deem just and expedient in the circumstances of the case including the award of cost of this petition, in the interest of justice and equity.”
3. When the matter was taken up today, Sri.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the notice was issued to the petitioner for participating in the investigation. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has been filed. Therefore, nothing survives for adjudication in this writ petition. The aforesaid statement is taken on record.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV