Syed Ismail vs Superintendent Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 11339 Kant

                            1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2022

                          BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

       WRIT PETITION NO.12010 OF 2022(GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

SYED ISMAIL,
S/O SYED BASHEER,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/O WARD NO.21, MUSLIM BLOCK,
K R NAGARA TOWN,
MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 602.
                                             ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SYED AKBAR PASHA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
   MYSURU DISTRICT,
   MYSURU - 570 001.

2. INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
   K R NAGAR TOWN POLICE,
   K R NAGAR,
   MYSURU DISTRICT - 571 602.
                                           ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENT POLICE TO GIVE POLICE PROTECTION TO THE
PETITIONER TO ENJOY HIS PROPERTY AS HELD IN
OS.NO.92/2010 DATED 12.08.2015 AND RA NO.19/2015 DATED
01.04.2016,WHICH ARE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A AND B TO
THE WRIT PETITION UNTIL DISPOSAL OF THIS WRIT PETITION
AND ETC.,
                                     2

     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

                                   ORDER

The grievance of the petitioner is as to police not

registering his complaint though he has obtained a

judgment & decree in O.S.No.92/2010 decreed on

12.08.2015. Learned counsel for the petitioner notifies to

the court as to the decree having attained finality in terms

of order in R.A.No.19/2015 disposed off on 1.4.2016. The

copies of decree in the suit and the order in the Regular

Appeal avail at Annexures-A & B respectively. Petitioner

also complains about his life, limb & property being at peril.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently

submits that despite the Executing Court directing the police

protection, the respondent police is not registering his

complaint though it reflects a version prima facie case

about the commission of cognizable offence. He hastens to

add that the complaint is closed by the said police vide

endorsement dated 18.2.2022 saying that the dispute is civil

in nature.

3. Learned AGA on request having appeared for the

official respondents, opposes the petition contending that

whether the complaint should be registered or not, is a

matter left to the discretion of the investigating officer in

terms of LALITA KUMARI vs. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR

PRADESH (2014) 2 SCC 1 and therefore, the writ remedy is

not the right remedy to avail to the petitioner. He also

points out the decision of the Apex Court in SHEO NANDAN

PASWAN VS. STATE OF BIHAR, AIR 1983 SC 194 to the

effect that petitioner can take up the matter for a private

complaint, as well. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the

Writ Petition.

4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

and having perused the Petition Papers, this Court is of a

considered opinion that the police has to take a call on the

complaint of the petitioner this way or that way, keeping in

view the observations of the Apex Court in Lalita Kumari

supra. This having not happened, petitioner is more than

justified in knocking at the doors of Writ Court.

In the above circumstances, this Writ Petition is

disposed off directing the second respondent police to

consider petitioner's complaint, in accordance with law and

keeping in view the observations made in Lalita Kumari

supra. The police are also directed to look into the grievance

of the petitioner as to whether he needs protection in the

light of the State Policy dated 14.11.2018.

Time for compliance is eight weeks. All contentions

are kept open.

Costs made easy.

Sd/-

JUDGE

cbc