Sri Manish B Gajria v. State of Karnataka
Case brief
What is this about?
On preliminary hearing, the court held that the petition was justified under Lalitha Kumari guidelines. It directed the SHO to consider registering the crime from an old FIR and inform the petitioner within three weeks.
What did the court decide?
Direction to the Second Respondent to consider whether a crime needs to be registered in terms of the subject FIR and inform the result within three weeks.
What the court decided
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
WRIT PETITION NO.16777 OF 2021 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
SRI. MANISH B GAJRIA, S/O LATE BHARATH R GAJRIA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.403, SHANTINIKETHAN APARTMENTS, NO.294, 39TH CROSS, 8TH BLOCK, JAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560070.
…PETITIONER
(BY SMT. SOWMYA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAJASHEKAR S, ADVCOATE)
AND:
- STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition should be allowed to direct the Station House Officer to consider registration of a crime based on an FIR filed alleging trespass in violation of a temporary injunction.
Whether the delay in filing the petition warrants dismissal given the Apex Court guidelines on police duty to investigate first information.
What relief, if any, can be granted to the petitioner as the crime registration was not done.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
SRI. MANISH B GAJRIA
- respondent
STATE OF KARNATAKA
- respondent
STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VISWANATHAPURA POLICE STATION
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Karnataka HC
- Decided on
- · September
- Registered
- Case no.
- WP/16777/2021
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court