BASAVANAND SWAMIGALU Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned endorsement at Annexure-B dtd. 19/10/2022 issued by the Police Inspector, CEN Police Station, Dharwad District, whereby the complaint dtd. 15/9/2022 submitted by the petitioner was rejected.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record.

(3.) A perusal of the material on record, in particular Annexure-A dtd. 15/9/2022 will clearly indicate that apart from other offences said to have been committed against the petitioner-complainant, it is a specific allegation of the petitioner that he is a visually disabled and the offence committed against him are attracted by Sec. 92 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and consequently necessary action is to be taken by the respondent-Police against the accused person. However, a perusal of the impugned endorsement at Annexure-B dtd. 19/10/2022 will indicate that the complaint of the petitioner has been rejected on the erroneous premise that only recourse available for the petitioner was to sue for defamation which is contrary to the averments made in the complaint, which go to show that the same constitute a cognizable offence. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that Annexure-B deserves to be set aside and necessary directions are to be issued to the Police. In the result, I pass the following: