IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JULY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE WRIT PETITION NO.34940/2018 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:
Bairesh Aged about 31 years S/o Ninge Gouda Occ: Transport Operator and Driver R/o No. 2, 4th Main, Astha Lakshmi Layout J.P. Nagar, 6th Stage Bangalore – 560 078. … Petitioner (By Sri V.V. Gunjal, Advocate) AND:
1. The State By Puttenahalli Police Station Puttenahalli J.P. Nagar 6th Stage, Bangalore – 560 078.
2. The RTO The Regional Transport Office By its Deputy Commissioner Transport And Regional Transport Officer Bangalore South, Jaynagar, 4th Block Bangalore – 560 001.
3. Kishore S/o Srinivas Aged about 45 years R/o Vinoba Nagara Alkola, 577 204 Shivamogge Taluka District Shimoga.
And Also at Kishore S/o Srinivas Aged about 45 years W/o Mythili Kishore Lakvalli 577 128 Taluka Tarikere Dist: Chikkamaluru R/o Vinoba Nagara. … Respondents (By Sri B Balakrishna, AGA for R-1 and R-2; Service of Notice to R-3 is held sufficient vide Order dated 20.6.2019) This Writ Petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to direct R-1 to immediately investigate the mater registered on 8.1.2018 GSC No. P02203180600012 petition No. 12/2203/2018 vide Annexures-A and B and take into custody the R-3, etc., This Writ Petition coming on for Preliminary Hearing in ‘B’ Group, this day, the Court made the following:-
O R D E R Sri.V.V.Gunjal, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri.B.Balakrishna, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
2. The Petition is admitted for hearing and with the consent of counsel for the parties, the petition is heard finally.
3. In this petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to immediately investigate the matter and to take appropriate action against respondent No.3.
4. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that with regard to the grievances, the petitioner had submitted a complaint to respondent No.1 with regard to the commission of cognizable offence. However, no action in the matter has been taken and direction be issued to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to register the First Information Report and to take an appropriate action. On the other hand, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent nos.1 and 2 submits that suitable action in accordance with law shall be taken.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. It is well settled law when a complaint is made before the Police Officer disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, the Police Officer is under statutory obligation to register the First Information Report.
6. In view of enunciation of law by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs Government Of U.P. & Others [(2014) 2 SCC 1], I deem it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition with a direction to respondent No.1 to examine the complaint of the petitioner and if the complaint of the petitioner discloses commission of cognizable offence, to register the First Information Report and to investigate the matter, expeditiously.
7. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RS/* ct:b