Loading...

Sri M Manohar vs Commissioner Of Police Bangalore … on 8 January, 2010

Karnataka High Court
Sri M Manohar vs Commissioner Of Police Bangalore … on 8 January, 2010
Author: Anand Byrareddy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT- BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 8"' DAY OF IANIIARY 2010

BEFORE:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRARI§O.Of~{  

WRIT PET{TiON NO.5k80 OI:2QII7  I  



Sri.M.ManOhar,  V
Son Of Late Patel V.MuIIiyzIppu. 
No.27/1, 8"' Main RIJIIG,» _ 
3" Cmss, B)/I'a.sand1'21, V   V.  

Bangalore ~ 560 01 1 V   "P.ETITIONER

(By M/Is} 

.  C-'.')'11'"lff3i$',S'A.i{)vE'i€i' Of Police,

   Ba
r ' '-I,IIfz1'IItIT'§y'-- had,

A '-..4_BangaEOIte.A.

 Oj2,L STIIK}Jayakakshmi.

"Wi.'r'e Ot'L::1Ee A.KI*ishII;Ii:1h.

V'  -Aged about 45 years.

NO663, 6"'  Main,
J.P.N2:gar, 3*" Stage,
Banga10re--56() O18  RESPONDENTS

Z

Pd

(By Smt. Revathy Adinath Narde, High Court
Pleader for respondent no.1, Shri. N. Bayya Reddy, VAdV<ocat'e: C'

for respondent nos.4 and 5) _– ~

.s. .1. i. -. 4.

4. ., :3. :}V .__

This Writ Petition is filed unde4i’v_Ai’ticles zzsjand 22’7t.¢i._pp
the Constitution of india praying to direct the Ct:-.inm.__i’svs.ioner of» ‘

Police, that is respondent no.1 “t’to”pi’ovide~._pi”otection to the
petitioner expeditiously.

This Writ Petitioiiiicioiningvpg}: t’ori_heia’i”.iVng this day, the
Court made the ft)1_1owing:..-t _ ‘ ‘ ‘ —

The._pe’t~itii'()fieif b’ei5oi’e”thi_s Cotirt seeking a direction to
the Ct}ii–}l’HiSisitv)t1t3i1″it3’~f4l5t)lliCf;. to provide police protection.

‘7’. the _petitii:_)net’~’iC’s case that there has been a spate of

«_civii_1i°i.iti-gation asi’ibe–tween the petitioner and respondent nos.2

a’ndi’3a. ~pietei:tioner’s right and “title in respect of partition has

been c(in:iistentEy upheld by the Courts and inspite of the same,

the petitioner seeking to put up construction has been actively

‘~p’i’evAei1zed under threat of assaitilt anti harm to the petitioner and

V’ “as such the petitioner had complained to the jurisdictional

police. Enspite of tg same. the jurisdictional Police have issued

an endorsement to state that the matter is civil in l1t};iurIejvt&1_4tdi{‘tht:-V,

petitioner should approach the civil Court. i

sought to be questioned by the petiti(>:tie1t:’andthe”pieti-tiptmer

seeks interference of this Court for..the relief whichi is_’s-ouglit.

3. Given the petitioner who
claims to hold judgeme_nts.:’in» to enforce the
same and if there is any
threat intended to be caused
by have to take recourse to the

criminal jus.tic’eVsystein;«…~’Which contemplates the procedure

V’ . th’r0{Igi_’i-»Wi1iCh the”pe–tit’ioner should proceed.

claims that he had already lodged a

report tothel local police but they have failed to take any action

2 “isa.a situation, which is also provided for under the Code of

ҤCriminal Procedure. i973. Hence, alternative remedies being

available to the petitioner in respect of any threat or harm that

may be caused by the<%pondent 1105.2 and 3. the petitioner has

not made out any case for issuance of a writ cia_i;rfied'.VV'~Héi7u;;.é;~.

the petition stands disposed of. Whiteghe peti_tim1~eiffis l.i«ber§y

to await remedies that are avaiiable L1i1.der:"1aw.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies. More Information