Karnataka High Court
Chaitra Priya A vs The Commissioner Of Police on 4 March, 2024
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:9125
WP No. 2972 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF MARCH, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION NO.2972 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
CHAITRA PRIYA A.,
D/O SRI APPAJAIAH A.G.
AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
FLAT G - 1, NO 232/10
M K SAROVARA BUILDING, 22ND CROSS,
6TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 070
...PETITIONER
(BY SMT. KUSUMA RANGANATH ADVOCATE FOR)
AND:
1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
NO 01, INFANTRY ROAD,
BANGALORE - 560 001
2. THE POLICE INSPECTOR
Digitally signed JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION,
by NAGAVENI
30TH CROSS ROAD,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF JAYANAGARA,
KARNATAKA BANGALORE -560 011
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE
ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO.118 AND 128/GNL/JNR/2023 DTD
30.11.2023, ISSUED BY THE R2 ANNEXURE-A ISSUE
DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER AND ACT ON
THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT DTD 21.07.2023 SUBMITTED BY
THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE-Q AND CONSEQUENTLY REGISTER
THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT BASED ON THE SAME.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:9125
WP No. 2972 of 2024
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking the
following reliefs:
(i) Issue a writ, order or direction, more in the nature
of writ of certiorari, quashing the Endorsement
bearing No.118 & 128/GNL/JNR/2023 dated
30.11.2023, issued by the 2nd Respondent
(Annexure-A);
(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction, more in the nature
of writ of mandamus to the Respondents to
consider and act on the Written Complaint dated
21.07.2023 submitted by the Petitioner
(Annexure-Q) and consequently register the First
Information Report based on the same;
(iii) Pass such other order(s) as may be deemed
proper and expedient in the circumstances of the
case."
2. Heard Smt. Kusum Ranganath, learned counsel
appearing for petitioner and Sri.K.P.Yoganna, learned
Additional Government Advocate for respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner taking
this Court to the complaint would seek to demonstrate
that there are cognizable offences made out in the facts so
NC: 2024:KHC:9125
narrated in the complaint and the police have deliberately
issued an Endorsement, which is impugned in the subject
petition.
4. The learned Additional Government Advocate
would submit that the issue is pending before the
Consumer Forum therefore, no crime is registered against
the parties who have the dispute with regard to certain
apartments.
5. The endorsement though would deem
acceptable in the first blush, but on a deeper delving on
the complaint that is made before the jurisdictional police,
the police ought to have taken note of the judgment of the
Apex Court in the case of LALITA KUMARI v.
GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.1 and then
take necessary action. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to
set aside the Endorsement and direct the
respondent/police to act strictly in consonance with the
judgment of Apex Court and the postulates laid down
(2014) 2 SCC 1
NC: 2024:KHC:9125
therein in LALITA KUMARI's case (supra), particular
reference to paragraph 120.6 therein.
6. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is disposed of.
(ii) The Endorsement bearing No.118 &
128/GNL/JNR/2023 dated 30.11.2023
issued by the second respondent
(Annexure-A) is quashed.
(iii) The jurisdictional police/Station House
Officer is directed to have a relook at
the complaint strictly in consonance
with judgment of Apex Court in
LALITHA KUMARI's case (supra).
Sd/-
JUDGE
DR
