Disposed

Dr Mohammed Hafeez v. the State Government of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Dec 2021WP/23404/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The writ petition challenging non-registration of an FIR was preliminarily heard. The court disposed of the petition, directing the respondent police officer to look into the grievance within six weeks based on the Lakhmi Kaur judgment parameters.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent authorities to look into the grievance regarding the FIR within six weeks.

Dr Mohammed Hafeez Vs the State Government of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.23404 OF 2021 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DR. MOHAMMED HAFEEZ, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, S/O LATE MOHAMMED SHABEER AHMED, R/AT NO.06, VINAYAKA BAKERY CROSS, AMC MAIN ROAD, KAVAL BYRASANDRA, NEAR SHAMPURA BUS STOP, R T NAGAR POST, BENGALURU – 560 032.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. RAHAMATHULLA KOTHWAL, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

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

¶14

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NORTH EAST DIVISION, AMRUTHA HALLI, BENGALURU – 560 092.

¶15

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SAMPIGEHALLI, HEGDE NAGAR MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 064.

¶16

¶17

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, BAGALURU POLICE STATION, BENGALURU – 560 064.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR M, AGA)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-5 TO CONSIDER THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER VIDE ANNX-D REGISTER F.I.R. AGAINST THE ALLEGED PERSONS AS PER COMPLAINT AND TAKE COGNIZANCE AGAINST THEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.,

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

The short grievance of the petitioner is as to non-

¶24

registration of the complaint in terms of FIR which he has lodged on 10.11.2021 at Annexure-D.

¶25

Learned AGA on request having accepted notice

¶26

for the respondents resists the writ petition contending that it

¶27

is too premature to approach the Court even before the consideration of representations dated 10.11.2021 is done; however, now he fairly submits that he would instruct his client, i.e., respondent No.2 to look into the grievance of the petitioner in the light of the parameters prescribed by the

¶28

Apex Court in LALITHA KUMARI vs GOVERNMENT OF

¶29

UTTAR PRADESH , 2014(2) SCC 1.

¶30

¶31

In the above circumstances, this writ petition stands

¶32

disposed off.

¶33

Time for compliance is six weeks. Costs made easy.

¶34

Sd/JUDGE

¶35

cbc

Dr Mohammed Hafeez v. the State Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr Mohammed Hafeez v. the State Government of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Planetcast Media Services Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Kavalaramarao Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Manjappa Vs Smt Shantha a P

M/S Allwin Scientifics Vs State of Karnataka

Prakash M Vs State of Karnataka

Gayathri S Shankar Vs State of Karnataka