IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.30065 OF 2018 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SRI DHANURAJA, S/O B.R. NAIK, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT #10/11, HOTEL ‘ADITYA INN’, SAI COLONY, OPPOSITE SBI, NEAR SATHYA SAI ASHRAM, BELLATHUR, KADUGODI POST, BENGALURU – 560 067.
(BY SRINIVASA D.C., ADV.) AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY IT’S CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR SC & ST, BY IT’S PRESIDENT, #14/3, II FLOOR, CFC BUILDING, NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. SRI ABHIMANYU @ PVC MANI, S/O PALANI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, RESIDING AT #1, VIJAYALAKSHMI COLONY, OPPOSITE TO CANARA BANK, … PETITIONER KADUGODI POST, BENGALURU – 560 067.
(BY SRI B. BALAKRISHNA, AGA FOR R1;
… RESPONDENTS SRI C. JAGADEESH, SPECIAL COUNSEL FOR R2; R3-NOTICE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED.) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE PETITIONER BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 IN CASE NO.176/2017 (ATROCITY), VIDE ANNEXURE-N AND P RESPECTIVELY AS ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Srinivasa D.C., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.B. Balakrishna, learned Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr.Mr.C. Jagadeesh, learned Special counsel for Respondent No.2.
The writ petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner inter alia seeks a writ of certiorari for quashment of the proceedings initiated against the petitioner by respondent No.2.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the complaint filed by the respondent No.3 before respondent No.2 viz., Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, no allegation has been made against the petitioner. The aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been fairly disputed by the learned counsel for respondent No.2.
4. In view of the fact that in the complaint, no allegation has been made against the petitioner, continuance of the proceedings for the petitioner before the respondent No.2 amounts to abuse of process of law.
Accordingly, the proceedings for the petitioner pending before respondent No.2. is quashed. In the result, the petition is allowed.
SD/- JUDGE SS