Sri Rajanna vs The Inspector Of Police
2022 Latest Caselaw 705 Kant

                             1

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                         BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

        WRIT PETITION NO.13207 OF 2019 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:
SRI. RAJANNA,
SON OF LATE CHIKKADUNDAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
R/AT YENNIGERE VILLAGE,
SOLUR HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 120.
NOW R/AT BYALAKERE VILLAGE,
BANGALORE NORTH TALUK
                                             ...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA H.V., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
       KUDUR POLICE STATION,
       MAGADI TALUK,
       RAMANAGAR DISTRICT-562 120.

2.     SRI. HANUMANTHRAYAPPA
       S/O LATE THIMMAPPA,]
       AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
       R/AT HULIMAVU VILLAGE,
       BEGUR HOBLI,
       BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
       BANGALORE-560 076.
                                          ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR, AGA FPR R1
    R2 - SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)

     THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 &
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
R-1 POLICE TO GIVE PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONER IN
IMPLEMENTING THE DECREE DATED 27.09.2007 PASSED BY
THE LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DVN.) MAGADI IN OS
NO.294/2003 AS PER ANNEXUER-A, BY CONSIDERING THE
                                2

COMPLAINT AS PER ANNEXURE-C, C-1, C2, DATED 30.09.09,
DATED 20.08.12 AND DATED 23.06.2016 RESPECTIVELY.

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

                             ORDER

The grievance of the petitioner appears to be police not

taking appropriate action against respondent No.2, said

respondent's suit in O.S.No.294/2003 is dismissed vide

Judgment & decree dated 27.09.2007. Petitioner has made

several representations dated 30.09.2009, 20.08.2012 &

23.06.2016 seeking some action at the hands of respondent

Police against respondent No.2 based upon the observations

made in the said judgment.

2. Learned AGA appearing for respondent Police

opposes the writ petition contending that the suit was filed

not by the petitioner but by respondent No.2 and that the

said suit has culminated in a decree of dismissal. Therefore,

much cannot be milked from the observations in the said

judgment. Further, he submits that respondent No.2 was

called to the police station and warned against taking the law

into his hands; he produced a copy of endorsement dated

09.08.2021 which reads as under:

" CfðzÁgÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ JzÀÄgÀÄ CfðzÁgÀgÀ£ÀÄß oÁuÉUÉ PÀgÉìĹ «ZÁgÀ ªÀiÁr ¸ÀÆPÀÛ ºÉýPÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ »A§gÀºÀ ¤Ãr ªÀÄÄPÀÛAiÀiÁ ªÀiÁrgÀÄvÉÛ".

Thus, grievance of the petitioner is substantially

addressed in terms of above endorsement and to respondent

No.2 and it is put in public domain as well.

In view of the above, writ petition is disposed off

reserving liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate legal

action if he so desires. All contentions in that regard are

reserved.

Costs made easy.

SD/-

JUDGE

DS/JY