Venkatesh S R vs The Station House Officer
2022 Latest Caselaw 1772 Kant

                            1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2022

                      BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

      WRIT PETITION NO.2391 OF 2022 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:

VENKATESH S R,
S/O RAMANJNAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
R/AT NO.316, SONNAPPANAHALLI,
BETTAHALSURU POST,
YELAHANKA TALUK,
BANGALORE-560 023.
                                       ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI.LAKSHMIKANTH K, ADVOCATE)

AND

1. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
CHIKKAJALA POLICE STATION,
CHIKKAJALA, YELAHANKA TALUK,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK,
PIN-562106.

2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE-560 001.

3. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE-560 001.

4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY IT'S CHIEF SECRETARY,
HOME DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING,
BANGALORE-560 001.
                                    ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

    THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT DTD 01.12.2021 ISSUED BY
THE R-1 POLICE VIDE ANNX-H; DIRECT THE R-1 TO
                              2

CONSIDER THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE PETITIONER DTD
10.11.2021 VIDE ANNX-G.

    THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-

                          ORDER

The short grievance of the petitioner is as to non-

registration of the FIR wherein certain allegations were

made against the public servants and others.

2. Learned AGA on request having accepted notice

for the respondents opposes the writ petition contending

that wherever a FIR should be registered or not is a matter

pertaining to the exclusive domain of the investigating

officer and therefore, Writ Court cannot interfere. He also

contends that for registering offences against the public

servants, there or certain constraints like Section 179 of

Cr.P.C., 1973 and Section 19 of Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988. Having so contended, he seeks dismissal of the

writ petition.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the

parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court

is of the considered opinion that when offences are alleged

against the public servants or private persons, there has to

be a legal process and that the jurisdictional police has to

look into the same and take a decision keeping in view the

decision of Apex Court in LALITA KUMRI Vs. STATE OF

UP, (2014) 2 SCC 1 That is the minimum requirement of a

Welfare State. That having not happened, petitioner is

knocking at the doors of Writ Court.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is

disposed off directing the first respondent to look into the

grievance of petitioner afresh and in accordance with law

and within a period of four weeks from the date a copy of

this judgment is handed, without reference to the

Endorsement earlier given.

All contentions are kept open.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bsv