- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8221 WP No. 5380 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 5380 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: K.G. KRISHNA S/O GOOLI GOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O NO.1680, 5TH A CROSS 10TH MAIN, 2ND BLOCK, BSK 1ST STAGE BENGALURU - 560 050. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVI B. NAIK, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. VIJETHA R. NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU CITY KARNATAKA STATE POLICE INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU - 560001. 2. SRI. RAVIKANTHE GOWDA INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CENTRAL CELL KARNATAKA STATE POLICE VASANTHANAGARA BENGALURU - 560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8221 WP No. 5380 of 2025 DIRECT THE R-1 POLICE TO CONSIDER HIS REPRESENTATION DATED 30.01.2025 PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND THEREBY ASSIGN TWO GUNMEN FOR THE SECURITY OF THE PETITIONER AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER 1. Learned High Court Government Pleader accepts notice for respondent No.1. 2. Notice to respondent No.2 is not necessary for the following reasons: (a) Learned Senior Counsel Sri. Ravi B. Naik appearing for the petitioner contends that the second respondent being the Inspector General of Police is harassing the petitioner only for the purpose of extracting money from the petitioner. In that regard, the petitioner has given several representations to the DG and IG and the concerned Inspector of Police. It is also contended that the petitioner has given a representation to the Hon'ble President of India, Hon'ble Governor of Karnataka, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8221 WP No. 5380 of 2025 seeking action against the second respondent. However, when a pointed question was put to the learned Senior Counsel as to whether the petitioner has approached the Karnataka Human Rights Commission, the learned Senior Counsel submitted that, 'yes, the petitioner has given a representation'. On the other hand, nothing is found in the writ petition. (b) Even otherwise, it is open for the petitioner to file a petition before the Karnataka Human Rights Commission and if such a petition is filed, this Court is sure that the Commission will take up the case of the petitioner and redress the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law. 3. With this observation, and with liberty given to the petitioner to approach the Karnataka Human Rights Commission, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49