IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.51476 OF 2016 (GM-FOR) BETWEEN:
SRI MURUGESH @ SRINIVAS S/O GOVINDAPPA AGED 34 YEARS, R/AT GEJJALANATHA RAMPURA VILLAGE, KOLLEGAL TALUK-571440 CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT.
(By Mr. VINOD KUMAR M, ADV.) AND:
1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT CHAMARAJANAGAR-571313.
2. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE RAMAPURA POLICE STATION, KOLLEGAL TLAUK-571313, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
3. THE RANGE FOREST OFFICER RAMPURA RANGE, KOUDALI KOLLEGALA TALUK-571440 CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT.
… PETITIONER … RESPONDENTS (By Mr. VIJAY KUMAR A. PATIL, AGA FOR R1 – R3) - - -
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-3 TO REGISTER AN FIR AND INVESTIGATE AS PER LAW AS SOUGHT IN ANNX-F COMPLAINT DTD:29-1-2016 & ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri.Vinod Kumar M., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Sri.Vijay Kumar A.Patil, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
2. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia has prayed for a direction to the respondent No.3 to register first information report and to investigate the Institution as narrated in Annexure-F in accordance with law.
3. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he had lodged a complaint with the respondent No.1 on 29.01.2016. However, no action on the aforesaid complaint was taken and no investigation was carried out by respondent No.1.
4. In rebuttal, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that action with regard to the Institution mentioned in Annexure-F was taken by the respondent No.3 and first information report was lodged against the petitioner and after completion of the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner for the offences under the Karnataka Forest Act, 1963.
5. In view of the aforesaid submissions and taking into account the fact that action with regard to the Institution mentioned in the complaint contained in Annexure-F submitted by the petitioner has already been taken, nothing survives for adjudication in this petition. Needless to state that in case the petitioner is aggrieved, he shall be at liberty to take action in accordance with law, if so advised.
With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV