Dismissed

A S Gupta , Advocate for Notary Public, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2019WA/2375/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the High Court dismissed an appeal against the Learned Single Judge's order rejecting prayers for FIR transfer and police seizure. The Court held investigation transfer is barred post-charge-sheet, and seizure is barred as a civil suit for possession is pending.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal was dismissed, maintaining the Single Judge's order rejecting prayers for FIR transfer and seizure.

A S Gupta , Advocate for Notary Public, Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY, 2019

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE H.T.NARENDRA PRASAD

¶7

WRIT APPEAL NO.2375/2019 (GM-POLICE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

A.S. GUPTA , ADVOCATE FOR NOTARY PUBLIC AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS S/O LATE S.L. TALWARIA CHAMBER AT NO.33, JAYAMAHAL ROAD J.C.NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 046 AND ALSO AT NO.29 3^RD B-CROSS, LALBAHADDUR NAGAR BENGALURU - 560 043.

¶10

... APPELLANT

¶11

(BY SHRI A.S. GUPTA, PARTY-IN-PERSON)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO THE HOME DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDI BENGALURU - 560 001

¶14

DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001

¶15

¶16

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CITY OF BENGALURU NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001

¶17

INSPECTOR GIRISH NAIK INSPECTOR OF POLICE J.C.NAGAR POLICE STATION JAYAMAHAL ROAD BENGALURU - 560 006

¶18

INSPECTOR OF POLICE SANJAYANAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU - 560 094

¶19

SRI. VISHWANATH DIVEDI (SINCE DEAD) S/O. LATE. S RAMAKISHORE SHASTRY AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS

¶20

SMT. SHASHI REKHA W/O. VISHWANATH DIVEDI AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS

¶21

SRI DEEPAK V. S/O. VISHWANATH DIVEDI AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS

¶22

SRI SRINATH V. S/O. VISHWANATH DIVEDI AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS

¶23

RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 9 ARE R/AT SRI. KASHI VISHWANATH VIDHYA MANDIR NO. 33, OLD NO. 2, JAYAMAHAL ROAD J.C. NAGAR, MUNIREDDY PALYA BANGALORE 560 006

¶24

... RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI P.B. ACHAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 & R5)

¶25

¶26

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE IN W.P. NO. 42941/2018 (GM-POLICE) DATED 12.06.2019 AND ETC.

¶27

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶28

JUDGMENT

¶29

We have heard the appellant appearing in person.

¶30

From the cause title it appears that the appellant is

¶31

an advocate. He has filed a writ petition before the learned Single Judge containing two prayers. The first prayer is that the respondents be directed to form a team of COD or Crime Branch, supervised by higher ranking police officer of the rank of at least an Assistant Commissioner of Police, to investigate the First Information Report (FIR) registered on 31^st July 2018. The second prayer is for a direction to the police to seize the immovable property of which he was allegedly dispossessed and to put him in possession thereof.

¶32

The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order,

¶33

has proceeded to reject the writ petition on two grounds. Firstly, after completion of the investigation, the charge sheet has

¶34

¶35

been filed and therefore, there is no question of transfer of the investigation to the COD or Crime Branch. Secondly, the petitioner has already filed a civil suit seeking possession of the property in question.

¶36

The grievance of the appellant is that the investigation has not been properly carried out. His submission is that the subject immovable property ought to have been seized by the police and the possession ought to have been restored to him. His main grievance is about the manner in which the investigation has been carried out. He further submitted that the Court should take suo motu cognizance of the manner in which the investigation has been carried out.

¶37

As narrated earlier, the first prayer is for transfer of investigation of the FIR. The said prayer is not capable of being granted as the charge sheet has been filed. If the appellant has any grievance about the investigation or the charge sheet, he has to adopt appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

¶38

¶39

The second prayer directing the police to seize the immovable property cannot be granted. Moreover, the appellant has filed a civil suit for possession of the said property. The appellant can always claim appropriate interim relief in the suit and pray for expeditious disposal of the suit. Hence, there is no reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶40

Subject to what is observed above, the appeal is dismissed.

¶41

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

A S Gupta , Advocate for Notary Public, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

A S Gupta , Advocate for Notary Public, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shri Hemagirish Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R Praveen Chandra Vs Union of India

M/S Shashikiran Stone Crushers Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Kmc Jmc (Jv) Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Bharat Samrakshana Samiti Vs State Government of Karnataka

Bank of Baroda Vs Gulbarga Airport Developers Pvt. Ltd.