IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A S BOPANNA WRIT PETITION No.25077/2016 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
SRI. YOGENDRAKUMAR S S/O SRIKANTARAMA SETTY AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, SRIKANTARAMASETTY & SONS JEWELLERS, NO.940, BAZAR STREET, NANJANGUD TOWN MYSORE DISTRICT-571301 (BY SRI K V SATEESHCHANDRA, ADV.) AND:
1. THE HOME SECRETARY REPRESENTED BY STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU-560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU-560 001 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE HASSAN DISTRICT HASSAN-573201 4. THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR HOLENARASIPURA POLICE STATION HASSAN DISTRICT-573211 ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI A M SURESH REDDY, AGA.) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, WITH A PRAYER TO DIRECT THE -1 & 2 TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST R-4 AND DIRECT THEM TO RETURN THE GOLD AND CASH AMOUNT ILLEGALLY COLLECTED FROM THE PETITIONER FORTHWITH AND DIRECT THE R-1 & 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNEX-F & F1 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R The petitioner is before this Court seeking issue of mandamus to direct respondents No.1 and 2 to take action against respondent No.4 and direct them to return the gold and cash amount illegally collected from the petitioner. The petitioner is also seeking that the representation as submitted by the petitioner be considered by the respondents.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is carrying on the jewelry business in the name and style “Srikantarama Setty and Sons” and according to him, the same is being carried on in accordance with law. The allegation in the petition is that on 26.03.2016, the Circle Inspector of Holenarasipura and two other Constables came to his shop and alleged that on 16.01.2016, the petitioner had purchased the stolen gold articles from the habitual offender by name Thippeshi @ Mobile Thippeshi. In that regard, the petitioner has referred to the photographs and also the footages of C.C.TV to allege misdemeanor on the part of the Circle Inspector. It is further contended that on 18.04.2016, the Sub- Inspector, Holenarasipura brought the said accused Thippeshi again to the shop of the petitioner. In that regard, the petitioner has contended that a false Mahazar has been drawn and therefore the petitioner had been harassed without any cause and appropriate action be taken in that regard.
3. The respondents have filed a detailed objection statement. Along with the objection statement, the documents have been produced as Annexures. The document at Annexure-R1 is the Station House Diary and the document at Annexure-R2 is the Case Diary. A perusal of the same would indicate that it contains the details of the action taken by the police authorities on 26.03.2016 and it is based on the investigation that was required, the shop of the petitioner was visited and the seizure has been made in accordance with law.
4. Therefore at this juncture, for the petitioner to contend that the visit of the Circle Inspector of Police as also the Sub-Inspector is without due process of law cannot be considered on the face of it. Hence, the prayer as made in the petition is not sustainable. At the same time, what is also necessary to be stated is that when factual aspects are asserted and the same is denied in the objection statement, a further consideration in any event would not arise in a writ petition of the present nature. If at all any other remedy is available to the petitioner, the same is required to be availed in accordance with law.
Hence, the petition being devoid of merit stands disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE hrp/bms