Disposed

Sri K S Manjunath v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Sept 2022WP/1838/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner complained of police manhandling and inaction on his grievances. Court directed the Commissioner of Police to address the grievance within six weeks, noting the constitutional obligation under Article 350 to consider representations.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Commissioner of Police to address the petitioner's grievance within six weeks and inform the result.

Sri K S Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.1838 OF 2022(GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. K S MANJUNATH, S/O LATE SRI SIDDHASHETY, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, OCCUPATION SOCIAL WORKER, R/AT NO.1191, GOKHALE ROAD, III STAGE, BEML LAYOUT, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 098.

¶8

...PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. HARIPRASAD M B, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

STATE OF KARNATAKA,

¶12

BY REP BY ITS SECRETARY, THE MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, ROOM NO.38 & 39, GROUND FLOOR, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶13

RAJASHEKARAIAH B C,

¶14

POLICE SUB INSPECTOR, EMP NO.2289409, CARD NO.3666, ANNAPOORNESHWARI NAGARA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU 560 072.

¶15

STATION HOUSE OFFICER,

¶16

RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU 560 098.

¶17

¶18

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU CITY, 2, ALI ASKAR ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU 560 051.

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. VINOD KUMAR M, AGA)

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU TO ASSIGN ENQUIRY TO THE CONCERNED CCB POLICE, REGISTER FIR CONDUCT THE ENQUIRY AND TAKE NECESSARY ACTION AGAINST THE CULPRITS WHO HAVE ACTED AGAINST LAW AND ETC.,

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

Petitioner-citizen who apparently is an accused

¶25

under certain offences is complaining before the Writ Court as to the alleged manhandling by the police in certain instances & on certain days, and of the consequent curtailment to his freedom of movement constitutionally enshrined under Article 19(1)(d).

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner draws attention of this Court to the pleadings and the representation wherein he had raised certain grievances

¶27

¶28

before the 4^th respondent - Commissioner of Police for taking action against the alleged actions of police officials; the said grievances have not been looked into. He also adds that unless this Court intervenes in this matter, the representations of his client would remain in cold storage.

¶29

After service of notice, the official respondents

¶30

being represented by the learned AGA have filed the statement of Objections dated 04.04.2022 controverting the petition averments. Learned AGA submits that as many as ten/10 criminal cases are pending against the petitioner for one or the other offence and that the petitioner is not a law abiding citizen. He also submits that the police have power and reasons to call the petitioner to the station for investigation into the plethora cases against him. That being the position, he seeks dismissal of the petition.

¶31

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this

¶32

¶33

Court is of a considered opinion that the 4^th respondent - Commissioner of Police ought to have considered grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law and this having not been done, petitioner is more than justified in knocking at the doors of this Court. It is relevant to mention that consideration of representation is constitutionally enshrined under Article 350. The said Article, which reads as under:

¶34

“Every person shall be entitled to submit a representation for the redress of any grievance to any officer or authority of the Union or a State in any of the languages used in the Union or in the State, as the case may be.”

¶35

In a series of similar matters, this Court has directed the jurisdictional authorities to look into the grievance of the citizens in a time bound manner and therefore, similar treatment needs to meted out the petitioner as well, there being no derogatory circumstances.

¶36

In the above circumstances, this writ petition is disposed off directing the fourth respondent to address

¶37

¶38

the grievance of the petitioner as aired in his subject representations within a period of six weeks and inform the result of such consideration to the petitioner.

¶39

All contentions are kept open.

¶40

It is open to the fourth respondent - Commissioner of Police to solicit any information/documents from the side of the petitioner as are required for due

¶41

consideration of his grievance.

¶42

Sd/JUDGE

¶43

Bsv

Sri K S Manjunath v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri K S Manjunath v. 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

Sri.Govindappa Vs the Tahsildar Chintamani

Sri Mahadeva Vs the Registrar of Societies

M/S Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. Vs the Sub-Registrar

Sri Dase Gowda Vs Karnataka Power Transmission

Kavitha Lizzie D Souza Vs Mario Wilson Mathias

M/S. Pearson India Education Vs Virat Institution of Rural