Petitioner approached the High Court seeking mandatory direction to respondent Superintendents to act on a pending representation alleging police inaction. The Court held that the criminal case was already seized by the judicial magistrate, leaving the petitioner with remedies in the criminal court.
The writ petition was disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO.113411 OF 2019 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
SRI ANIL S/O. PAREESA HAVALE, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O: BORAGAON, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI SRINAND A. PACHCHAPURE, ADVOCATE)
AND:
VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7255 WP No. 113411 of 2019
R/O: BORAGAON, TQ: CHIKODI, DIST: BELAGAVI-590001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRARSHANT V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R.1 TO R.3; NOTICE TO R.4 TO R.8 IS DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 TO TAKE ACTION ON THE COMPLAINTS DATED 09/08/2017 FILED BY THE PETITIONER MARKED AT ANNEXUE-C & D RESPECTIVELY AND TO ISSUE A DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO REINVESTIGATE THE MATTER IN CRIME NO.177/2017 OF SADALAGA POLICE STATION VIDE ANNEXURE-E, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking writ of mandamus for a direction to respondent Nos.1 and 2 to take action on the complaint dated 09.08.2017 filed by petitioner vide Annexures-C and D respectively.
petitioner lodged a complaint to the 3rd respondent/Police Station.
respondent/Police summoned respondent Nos.4 to 8 and warned and advise them not to do such acts. On 15.07.2017 at around 2:30 p.m, the said persons again came to the disputed property and cut the bamboo trees and transported the same. The same was objected and requested by petitioner not to do, respondent Nos.4 to 8 physically assaulted with club and handle of axe and created galata. Due to which, several people and the villagers gathered. Due to the assault to petitioner and his brother were shifted to the hospital for treatment and thereafter to Chikkodi Government hospital.
petitioner lodged a complaint against respondent Nos.4 to 8 and based on the complaint, respondent No.3 registered a case in Crime No.177/2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 326, 341, 504 and 506 R/w Section 149 of IPC.
2 with regard to assault on the circumstances leading to filing of the FIR. The representation so made by petitioner to respondent Nos.1 and 2 was not responded and no action was taken by respondent Nos.1 and 2 and not even a reply given to the said representation. Under the circumstances, petitioner being aggrieved by the inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2, is before this Court.
respondent No.3. Accordingly, they made a representation to respondent Nos.1 and 2 for inaction by respondent No.3. It is seen that pursuant to the complaint registered, FIR is lodged by the police for the aforementioned offences. Being dissatisfied with the same, representation is made to respondent Nos.1 and 2 which ought to have been considered by respondent Nos.1 and 2 by sending a reply or taking suitable action in accordance with law, no such reply or consideration of the representation is forthcoming.
representation is made by citizen/complainant with regard to inaction by the police officer of the particular police station for non performance of his duty in accordance with law especially in criminal cases, it becomes duty to the Senior officers to consider the representation and take suitable action on the same or the least the superior officers could have done is to reply to such representation. However, in the present case, apparently there is no material to show that respondent Nos.1 and 2 have considered the representation or given a reply.
view of the fact that now charge-sheet has been filed, no action is taken prior to filing of the charge-sheet by respondent Nos.1 and 2, this writ petition is filed pursuant to filing of the charge-sheet i.e., in the year 2019. Therefore, criminal matter was seized before the judicial Magistrate, Chikkodi, nothing could be done by respondent Nos.1 and 2, only remedy that would be available to the petitioner is to move the Court before which the criminal case is pending in C.C.No.2968/2017 (earlier C.C.No.590/2023) and since the petitioner is complaining
through the prosecution, an application could be filed for necessary relief's. On such application, if any filed through prosecution, the Court dealing with the criminal case shall dispose of the application in accordance with law. However, this Court is not giving go by to the inaction of respondent Nos.1 and 2 in not considering or responding the representation made by petitioners.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:7255 WP No. 113411 of 2019
duty bound to consider the representation and replied to
the same or take necessary action in accordance with law.
12. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/JUDGE
AM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court can issue a direction to superior police officers to respond to a representation regarding inaction on a criminal complaint.
SRINIL S/O AREESA HAVALE
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, NORTH ZONE
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BELAGAVI
PRADHEEP SINGH YERUR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
