MEHABOOB Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Though the matter is coming up for preliminary hearing, with the consent of learned counsel for petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

(2.) The petitioner who is 71 years old, seems to be aggrieved by the inaction on the part of respondent police in registering an FIR based on his complaint dated 27.01.2020, Annexure-A. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the complaint, the petitioner alleges that he has been eking his livelihood by running a tailor shop, in the shop premises belonging to Anjuman-E-Islam Committee of Shaizadi Mastan Dargah, Kudagi. It is submitted that the petitioner has been paying monthly rent of Rs.1,500/- and has deposited Rs.50,000/- as security with the Committee. As per the complaint, on 24.01.2020 at about 8.30 a.m., the members of the Committee who are named in the complaint, came to the shop of the petitioner, used filthy language and threw away sewing machines and clothes to the road and have taken away Rs.35,000/- in cash which was lying in the locker. In this regard, when the complaint was lodged before the NTPC Police Station, Basavana Bagewadi, the jurisdictional police have not registered the FIR. Since, the jurisdictional police did not register the FIR, the petitioner made several representations to the Superintendent of Police, Vijayapura District, bringing to his notice, the inaction on the part of jurisdictional police. In this regard, the petitioner has produced a copy of the letter written to the Superintendent of Police, Vijayapura with a copy marked to the Police Inspector, NTPC Police Station, Kudagi, Circle Inspector, Kudagi, Basavana Bagewadi and Sub-Division, Deputy Superintendent of Police along with acknowledgements.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the atrocious inaction on the part of respondent police is clearly in violation of the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure, the circulars issued by the Government of Karnataka, Home Department, consequent to the conclusion and directions issued by a constitutional bench of the Apex Court in the case of Lalitakumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. Therefore, the prayer of the petitioner is to issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to register a case in terms of the complaint dated 27.01.2020 at Annexure-A.