Disposed

Shri. Ankush S/O Pralhad Rathod v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Nov 2024WP/104976/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A businessman alleged assault and threats by a private respondent and sought a mandamus directing police to act on his complaint, plus police protection. The State contended alternative remedies existed. The court disposed of the petition, reserving liberty to file a private complaint before the jurisdictional court without expressing merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed of; liberty reserved to petitioner to approach appropriate jurisdictional Court/forum for redressal of grievance.

Shri. Ankush S/O Pralhad Rathod Vs the State of Karnataka — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16097 WP No. 104976 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024 BEFORE

¶3

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 104976 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE)

¶4

BETWEEN:

¶5

SHRI. ANKUSH S/O. PRALHAD RATHOD, AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. KATHODA TANDA, TALUKA DISTRICT, BEED MAHARASHTRA, PIN CODE-111045.

¶6

…PETITIONER

¶7

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶8

AND:

¶9

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, CENTRAL JAIL ROAD, BELLARY, PIN CODE-583101.

¶10

DYSP CENTRAL JAIL ROAD, BELLARY, PIN CODE-583101.

¶11

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH SANDUR SUB-INSPECTOR, POLICE STATION R/BY IT HIGH COURT PLEADER DHARWAD BENCH.

¶12

MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶14

ABDUL S/O. SUBHANSAB KHADAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.313, KRISHNA NAGAR, SANDUR, BALLARI, PIN CODE-583101.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. V.S. KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1-R3)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE

¶18

I. KINDLY ALLOW THE PETITION.

¶19

II. KINDLY ISSUE A DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE APPLICATION IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE “B” VIDE DATED ON 25-07-2024 AND TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.4 AND ETC.

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16097 WP No. 104976 of 2024

¶21

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

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned

¶25

HCGP for respondents No.1 to 3.

¶26

2. The grievance of petitioner in this petition is that respondents No.1 to 3 have obstructed and refused to perform their official duty by registering a complaint against respondent No.4, thereby committing dereliction of their duties. Petitioner is a businessman in renting and buying construction material. He has received a work order from M/s.Dev Associates from Pune to operate wheel loader for two years at NDMC Dhonimalai, when the petitioner wanted to commence the work, the respondent No.4 came to his workplace and threatened the employee of the petitioner and abused in filthy and abusive language and assaulted him leading to the injuries suffered by the workmen of the petitioner namely Hafiz Khan and the threat was given by respondent No.4 to the petitioner workmen. In view of the threat and assault made on the worker and employer of the

¶27

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16097 WP No. 104976 of 2024

¶28

petitioner, a complaint was lodged before the jurisdictional police against respondent No.4, which was conveniently refused and ignored by the jurisdictional police. In view of no action being taken by the jurisdictional police, the petitioner took up the matter to the Superintendent of Police, Central Jail Road, Bellari against respondent No.4. However, despite such a representation having been given, no action came to be taken by respondents No.1 to 3. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court due to inaction of the respondents No.1 to 3 in not registering and lodging a complaint/F.I.R. against respondent No.4.

¶29

3. Petitioner by way of filing this petition is also seeking police protection and obstruction caused by respondent No.4 to be restrained by the jurisdictional police.

¶30

4. Per contra, the learned HCGP representing the State submits that the present petition would not be maintainable for the reason that if the respondents have not registered the case against 4^th respondent, it is always open to the petitioner to initiate appropriate action before the appropriate Court/forum against the 4^th respondent/private

¶31

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16097 WP No. 104976 of 2024

¶32

party in the manner known to law. But he has approached this Court to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not be the correct procedure to be followed. Under the circumstances, he contends that the petitioner could avail alternative remedy rather than approaching this Court.

¶33

5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP for respondents, there is some force in the contention put forth by learned HCGP that before approaching this Court to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction, the petitioner would have to avail all other alternative remedies available. Therefore, after filing a representation or complaint to the Superintendent of Police, respondent No.1, when no answer/reply was given, it is open to the petitioner to approach the concerned jurisdictional Court to file a private complaint against the private party i.e., respondent No.4, which has not been done.

¶34

6. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that this petition could be disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the concerned jurisdictional Court to

¶35

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-D:16097 WP No. 104976 of 2024

¶36

file a private complaint against respondent No.4, if he is so advised and aggrieved. Under the circumstances, I pass the

¶37

following :

¶38

ORDER

¶39

(i) Petition is disposed of.

¶40

(ii) Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate jurisdictional Court/forum for redressal of his grievance.

¶41

(iii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits or demerits of the matter. If any such complaint is filed, same shall be dealt with in accordance to law without being influenced by the order passed by this Court.

¶42

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶43

CKK

¶44

CT-MCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Shri. Ankush S/O Pralhad Rathod v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Ankush S/O Pralhad Rathod 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Eerappa Vs Maleppa

Shri Parashuram Dharmaji Nandihalli, Vs the J D L R , Belagavi

Basavaraj S/O Krishnareddy Hooli Vs University of Agricultural Science, Dharwad

Sri.Phalahara Shivayogeshwara Shikshana Samithi Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Gururaja Proud a Shale Vs the State of Karnataka

Jaswitha Gunnam Vs Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences