IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.28259 OF 2017 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
SRI. MANJUNATH PRASAD S/O LATE VENKATA NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT BHAVANI LAYOUT SIRA TOWN, SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 137.
(BY SRI. NANJUNDA GOWDA M. R., ADV.) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HOME DEPARTMENT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY INFANTARY ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001.
3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER YESHWANTHAPURA POLICE BENGALURU CITY – 506 022.
4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BAGALAKUNTE POLICE BENGALURU … PETITIONER REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDINGS – 560 073.
5. SRI. LAKSHMIKANTH R S/O RAMANNA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS R/AT NO.202, 6TH CROSS DEFENCE COLONY BAGALAKUNTE BENGALURU – 560 073.
AND ALSO R/OF CHENNAKUNTE VILLAGE SIRA TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 137.
… RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. V. RAVANNAPPA, ADV. FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 and 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT 4TH RESPONDENT TO INVESTIGATE THE MATTER AND ALSO DIRECT THE HIGHER OFFICIALS R1 TO R3 TO SUPERVISE THE INVESTIGATION THROUGHOUT THE PROCEEDINGS AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. Nanjunda Gowda M.R., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri. Vijay Kumar A. Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4.
Sri. V. Ravanappa, learned counsel for respondent No.5.
The petition is admitted for hearing. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.4 to investigate the matter and also direct the higher officials respondent Nos.1 to 3 to supervise the investigation throughout the proceedings.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the writ petition may be disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the complaint dated 03.06.2017 made by the petitioner, in accordance with law.
4. On the other hand, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 4 submitted that the complaint made by the petitioner shall be dealt with in accordance with law, if not already decided.
5. In view of the submissions made and in the facts of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the competent authority shall decide the complaint made by the petitioner, if not already decided, in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order passed today.
6. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE Mds/-