Disposed

Deepak Kumar Kundu v. the Commissioner of Police

Karnataka HC10 Nov 2021WP/4350/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This was a preliminary hearing in a writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The petitioner, appearing in person, accepted the proposal by the State Bar Council to look into the grievance within two months and inform the petitioner of the result within one week thereafter.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed off placing on record the undertaking given by the counsel appearing for the State Bar Council and the submission of learned HCGP.

Deepak Kumar Kundu Vs the Commissione… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO.4350 OF 2021(GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

DEEPAK KUMAR KUNDU, AGED 67 YEARS, S/O SRI. BHABESH CHANDRA KUNDU, T-01, NISCHITHA ANNEX, 7^TH CROSS, KAGGADASPURA MAIN ROAD, C V RAMAN NAGAR, BENGALURU – 560 093. EMAIL:dkkunduinyahoocom Mobile: 8762405333

¶9

… PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI.DEEPAK KUMAR KUNDU, PARTY IN PERSON)

¶11

AND:

¶12

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

¶13

SECRETARY, BAR COUNCIL OF KARNATAKA, OLD ELECTION COMMISSION BUILDING, DR.AMBEKDAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU -560 001.

¶14

… RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. SRIDHAR HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.G.NATARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE POLICE TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED AND ETC.,

¶17

¶18

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING

¶19

IN B GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶20

ORDER

¶21

Regardless of the text & context of the pleadings of the

¶22

parties, the petitioner, appearing as party-in-person agrees with the proposal of the respondent-State Bar Council that they would look into the petitioner’s grievance within an outer limit of two months and inform the petitioner the result of consideration of the matter within one week next thereafter.

¶23

Learned HCGP fairly agrees that the grievance of the

¶24

petitioner which is sought to be made out under the extant criminal law can be addressed by the Commissioner of Police keeping in view the parameters laid down by the Apex Court

¶25

in LALITHA KUMARI vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, (2014) 2 SCC 1, in a time bound way.

¶26

Ordered accordingly and Writ petition is disposed off placing on record the undertaking given by the counsel appearing for the State Bar Council and the submission of learned HCGP appearing for the official respondents.

¶27

¶28

Time for compliance is two months.

¶29

All contentions of the parties are kept open.

¶30

Sd/JUDGE

¶31

Snb/

Deepak Kumar Kundu v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepak Kumar Kundu v. the Commissioner of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri.G.N. Venkataravanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Manjula Vs Sri Chetankumar

Kanakamma Vs Guru Raghavendra Sahakara Bank Niyamitha

Yashodamma Vs Veeramadhu

Mrs Sarvani Vemula Vs Mr Sridhar Chinta

M/S Yojaka India Private Ltd. Vs the Assistant General Manager