Karnataka High Court
Sri. M Ananda Bhairavi vs The Secretary on 27 October, 2023
Bench: Chief Justice, Krishna S Dixit
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:38177-DB
WA No. 751 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR PRASANNA B. VARALE, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
WRIT APPEAL NO. 751 OF 2022 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
SRI. M ANANDA BHAIRAVI,
S/O LATE MADAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,
NO.1002, 14TH MAIN, 16TH C CROSS,
1ST STAGE, 5TH BLOCK,
NEAR SRI SAI HOSPITAL, NAGAWARA POST,
BENGALURU-560 045.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. BHANU PRAKASH H V.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SHARADA 1. THE SECRETARY,
VANI B DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS,
Location: HIGH VIDHANA SOUDHA,
COURT OF BANGALORE-560 001.
KARNATAKA
2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
NAZARABAD MYSORE CITY,
MYSORE-570 011.
3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE,
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
OF POLICE,
MYSORE DISTRICT,
NAZARBAD MOHALLA,
MYSURU-570 011.
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:38177-DB
WA No. 751 of 2022
4. THE ASST COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF POLICE,
MAHARANA PRATHAP SIMHAJI ROAD,
MYSORE-570 010.
5. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE,
N R MOHALLA POLICE STATION,
N R MOHALLA, MYSORE-570 007.
6. SMT BHAGYA,
AGED MAJOR,
W/O LATE SRI RAMACHANDRA,
R/O D 4174/A, 8TH CROSS,
GANDHI NAGAR,
MYSORE-570 007.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT.SHWETHA KRISHNAPPA., AGA FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO I) SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 18/06/2021, PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE
OF THIS HON BLE COURT IN WP NO.7370/2021 AND II)
CONSEQUENTLY, ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO TAKE
COGNIZANCE OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER
DATED 28/11/2017 AND REGISTER CRIME, PREPARE FIR,
CONDUCT ENQUIRY AND TO PROCEED AGAINST THE SAID
SMT. SOWBHAGYA ALIAS BHAGYA (RESPONDENT NO.6)
AGAINST WHOM THE PETITIONER HAS LODGED COMPLAINT
FOR CONCOCTING THE TITLE DEEDS OF THE PROPERTY AND
ACTING AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF THE CO-OWNERS OF THE
PROPERTY AND TRYING TO DISPOSE OF THE PROPERTY AS
INDIVIDUAL SELF-ACQUIRED PROPERTY OF HER HUSBAND
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:38177-DB
WA No. 751 of 2022
THOUGH THE SAID PROPERTY IS AN ANCESTRAL PROPERTY
AND INITIATE SUITABLE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HER UNDER
THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND iii)PASS
SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING,
THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
This intra-court appeal seeks to lay a challenge to a
learned Single Judge's order dated 18.06.2021 whereby
the appellant's W.P.No.7370/2021 has been disposed off
without granting any substantive relief to him. However,
liberty is reserved to the appellant 'to seek remedy before
appropriate forum'.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that
his client had filed the subject writ petition with a prayer
for the issuance of writ of mandamus to the 'respondent-
Police to take cognizance of the complaint dated
28.11.2017, registered crime, prepare FIR, conduct
enquiry and proceed against the accused' who happens to
be the sixth respondent herein; that being the position the
NC: 2023:KHC:38177-DB
WA No. 751 of 2022
police ought to have been directed to register the crime
and to undertake investigation. That having not been
done, there is error apparent on the face of the impugned
order and therefore, the same is liable to be voided.
3. Having heard the learned counsel for the
appellant and learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the official respondents, we decline
indulgence in the matter broadly agreeing with the
reasoning on which the impugned order has been
structured. It hardly needs to be stated that a criminal law
can be set in motion by any person as a general rule; if
the court fails to register FIR even in respect of a
cognizable offence, law is now settled that the aggrieved
can file a private compliant before the competent forum
vide Sheonandan Paswan vs. State of Bihar,
(1987) 1 SCC 288 which view has been reiterated in
LALITA KUMARI VS. GOVT. OF U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1. That
is the reason why liberty has been reserved to the
appellant. We do not find justification for interference.
NC: 2023:KHC:38177-DB
WA No. 751 of 2022
In the above circumstances, this appeal being devoid
of merits is liable to be and accordingly dismissed, costs
having been made easy.
Sd/-
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/-
JUDGE
Snb, KPS
