JAYARAM Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a writ petition filed by a deaf and dumb who unfortunately met with an accident on 6-3-1987 when the petitioner was passing by the side of Bangalore Kunigal Road near Kenkere village limits and was knocked down by a car bearing Reg. No. MEY 8289. The petitioner submits that it was a case of hit and run caused by rash and negligent driving of the car. The petitioner sustained serious injuries inclusive of fracture of pelvis besides other injuries and was admitted to Sanjay Gandhi Hospital, Jayanagar, Bangalore on the very same day and was treated in that hospital as inpatient. After the accident, the father of the petitioner went to Tilaknagar Police Station, Bangalore at the instance of the hospital authorities and lodged a complaint which was subsequently transmitted by the police to the jurisdiction police station that is, to Kunigal Police who ultimately registered the case in F.I.R. 84/87.

(2.) After discharge from the hospital, the father of the petitioner went to 3rd respondent who is the Sub-Inspector of Police, Kunigal Police Station requesting him for particulars of the owner, driver, insurance etc., in relation to the vehicle that was involved in the accident. It is alleged by the petitioner that the 3rd respondent told him that the vehicle involved in the accident belongs to a very important person and therefore the petitioner ought not to proceed further. Later on, the petitioner approached his lawyer and applied for the certified copies of the F.I.R. Mahazar, M.V.I, report, charge sheet etc., This application was submitted after paying the prescribed fee to the 2nd respondent on 20-10-1987. The petitioner received a communication from the 2nd respondent vide Annexure-A dated 15-12-1987. According to the petitioner the said communication evidently shows that the 3rd respondent had not conducted any material investigation to collect the necessary particulars applied by the petitioner through 2nd respondent. The petitioner is aggrieved on account of non-furnishing of the particulars sought by the petitioner both by 2nd and 3rd respondent and therefore has approached this court for relief.

(3.) The relief sought is for direction to the 2nd and 3rd respondents to furnish to the petitioner particulars of the name and address of the owner of the vehicle, the driver of the vehicle and the insurance company with which the motor vehicle is insured in respect of Crime No. 84/1987 on the file of the Kunigal Police Station after investigation of the same and in accordance with law.