Sri Rohith C vs State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 1232 Kant

                             1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

       WRIT PETITION NO.193 OF 2022(GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:

SRI. ROHITH C,
S/O SRI. K M CHANDRASHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO.170, 2ND CROSS,
M S RAMAIAH NORTH STREET,
TANISANDRA MAIN ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 077.
                                         ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SOMASHEKARAIAH R P, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
   HOME DEPARTMENT,
   VIDHANA SOUDHA,
   BENGALURU - 560 001.
   REP BY ITS SECRETARY.

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

3. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER,
   JNANABHARATHI POLICE STATION,
   JNANABHARATHI,
   BENGALURU - 560 056.
                                     ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
DIRECT THE RESPONDETNS TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION
ON THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE PETITIONER DATED
13.01.2021 AND 22.10.2021 TO VIVE POLICE PROTECTION
AND ALSO REGISTER THE CASE BY CONSIDERING THE
COMPLAINT UNDER ANNEXURE-G AND H RESPECTIVELY
PURSUANT TO THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED
6.1.2016 MADE IN O.S.NO.8902/2014 ON THE FIEL OF THE
                              2

37TH ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU
AND JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 26.8.2021 MADE IN
O.S.NO.1479/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDL CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY UNDER ANNEXURE-E
AND F IN RESPECT OF THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY.

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

                          ORDER

The short grievance of the petitioner is as to non-

registration of the offences in question by the respondent-

police despite abundant material on record being available

for the registration. Learned counsel for the petitioner

banks upon the decision of the Apex Court in LALITA

KUMARI Vs. STATE OF UP, (2014) 2 SCC 1 in support of

his contention.

2. Learned AGA on request having accepted notice

for the respondents opposes the writ petition contending

that whether particular acts amount to an offence or not,

and whether such offences are to be registered or not, are

all the matters relating to the domain of the investigating

agency and therefore the Writ Court ordinarily should not

interfere in cases of this kind. He too banks upon the

LALITA KUMARI supra in support of his contention.

3. Having contended as above, learned AGA now

fairly agrees with the suggestion of this Court that the

respondents should consider grievance of the petitioner in

accordance with law and in a time bound way.

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is

disposed off, all contentions of the parties having been

kept open.

Time for compliance is eight weeks.

No costs.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Bsv