Dismissed

Sri Banashankar a v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Feb 2023WP/1957/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, petitioners sought a direction for police stations not to accept complaints filed by the sixth respondent, citing frivolous allegations. The court refused this prayer, holding it contradictory to the mandate in Lalita Kumari regarding mandatory registration of cognizable offence complaints.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; no direction issued to police stations regarding refusal of complaints.

Sri Banashankar a Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

WP No. 1957 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 1957 OF 2023 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶9

SRI. BANASHANKAR. A S/O. LATE APPAIAHSWAMY AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.16, 5TH CROSS, H. APPAIAHSWAMY LAYOUT, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560061.

¶10

SMT. PADMA W/O. HEMARAJU AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.193, 5TH CROSS, APPAIAHSWAMY LAYOUT, UTTARAHALLI, BANGALORE-560061.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. N. R. NAIK.,ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶15

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BANGALORE CITY, INFANTRY ROAD,

¶16

¶17

WP No. 1957 of 2023

¶18

BANGALORE-560001.

¶19

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER SUBRAMANYAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560061.

¶20

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ULSOOR GATE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560002.

¶21

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BASAVANAGUDI WOMEN POLICE STATION, BANASHANKARI, BENGALURU-560070.

¶22

SMT. UMA W/O. A. BANASHANKAR AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.22, J.M ROAD, M.S LANE, BANGALORE-560002.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. M. VINODKUMAR, AGA., FOR R1 TO R5)

¶25

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5 NOT TO ACCEPT THE COMPLAINTS FILED BY THE 6TH RESPONDENT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND EVEN IF FILED THE COMPLAINT TO VERITY THE EARLIER ENQUIRY PROCEEDINGS WAS CONDUCTED BY THEM AND CLOSE THE SAME; VIDE ANNEXURE-A, D & E; 2) TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE COMPLAINTS FILED BY 6TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS 3 TO 5

¶26

¶27

WP No. 1957 of 2023

¶28

AUTHORITIES AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S DEEMS FIT BY THIS HON'BLE COURT.

¶29

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

¶30

ORDER

¶31

The petitioners are before this Court seeking the following prayer:

¶32

a. To issue writ of mandamus directing the respondents 3 to 5 not to accept the complaints filed by the 6th respondent against the petitioners and even if filed the complaint to verify the earlier enquiry proceedings was conducted by them and closed the same vide Annexures-A, D & F.

¶33

b) To call for records pertaining to the complaints filed by 6^th respondent before the respondents 3 to 5 authorities and grant such other relief/s deems fit by this Hon'ble Court.

¶34

Heard Shri N.R.Naik, learned counsel appearing

¶35

for the petitioners.

¶36

The petitioners seek for a direction by issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent

¶37

¶38

WP No. 1957 of 2023

¶39

Nos.3 to 5-the Station House Officer of Subramanyapura Police Station, Ulsoor Gate Police Station and Basavanagudi Women Police Station not to accept any complaints filed by the 6^th respondent. The law, in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1 requires registration of a complaint forthwith on a cognizable offence being made in any complaint by the complainant.

¶40

The petitioner seeks a direction contrary to the

¶41

judgment of the Apex Court directing this Court to direct Respondent Nos.3 to 5 not to register any complaint. The reason behind the said direction according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the 6^th respondent files frivolous complaints. That cannot be the ground, on which, the petition can be entertained. The prayer that is sought to say the least is preposterous and if such a prayer is answered and a direction is granted to the Respondent Nos.3 to 5, not be register any complaint

¶42

¶43

WP No. 1957 of 2023

¶44

against them it will be glorifying such preposterousness,

¶45

and would become an order contrary to the judgment of

¶46

the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra).

¶47

The petition stands dismissed .

¶48

Sd/JUDGE

¶49

Sri Banashankar a v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Banashankar a v. the State 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Seetha Udayashankar Bhat Vs the State of Karnataka

U B Siddique Vs the Enrollement Officer

Sri M Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Wisdom World Developers Private Limited Vs Dr Sabita Ramamurthy

Sri G Sathivel Vs the Regional Passport Officer

Smt T S Manjuladevi Vs the State of Karnataka