Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 74151 (KAR)

ASHOK KUMAR B D v. THE SECRETARY

WP/26451/2025 · 2025-09-18

B M Shyam Prasad

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37311 WP No. 26451 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 26451 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: ASHOK KUMAR B D S/O DORESWAMY AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUR R/AT BENAGALU VILLAGE, PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571102 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HANUMANTHAPPA B HARAVIGOWDAR., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001 2. THE INSPECTOR OF GENERAL OF POLICE & DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, HOME DEPARTMENT, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37311 WP No. 26451 of 2025 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU-570001 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, HUNSURU SUB DIVISION, HUNASURU, MYSURU DISTRICT- 570001 5. THE POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR, BAILUKUPPE POLICE STATION, PERIYAPATNA TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT- 570001 6. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, SOUTH ZONE, MYSURU, JALAPURI, MYSURU DISTRICT-570019 7. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU-570001 8. DINESH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCCUPATION: MANAGER, AT EE.KAMGIL COFFEE CURING WORKS, R/AT BENAGALU VILLAGE, PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571102 9. VIVEK AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, OCCUPATION: EMPLOYEE AT EE.KAMGIL COFFEE CURING WORKS, R/AT BENAGALU VILLAGE, PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571102 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37311 WP No. 26451 of 2025 10. SMT. SHOBHA K.G. W/O HARISH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, EMPLOYEE AT EE.KAMGIL COFFEE CURING WORKS, R/AT BENAGALU VILLAGE, PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571102 11. HARISH S/O DASEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, EMPLOYEE AT EE.KAMGIL COFFEE CURING WORKS, R/AT BENAGALU VILLAGE, PERIYAPATNA TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-571102 12. SHIVANNA S.C. HEAD CONSTABLE, NO.278, SARGURU POLICE STATION, H.D.KOTE, MYSURU DISTRICT-571102 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA FOR R1 TO R7) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R1 SHALL CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.02.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT AND DIRECTING THE R6 SHALL CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 08.02.2025 ANNEXURE -J WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT AND DIRECT THE R3 SHALL PASS NECESSARY ORDERS ON THE OFFICIAL LETTER DATED 27.02.2025 AS ANNEXURE -K BEARING NO. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37311 WP No. 26451 of 2025 MYSDC/MAG4/MISC/214/2025 (E-726392) WITH IMMEDIATE EFFECT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner, a resident of Benagalu Village, Periyapatna Taluk, Mysuru District and an employee of Ee.Kamgil Coffee Curing Works, has filed this petition for directions to the different respondents [including the Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, the Inspector General of Police and Director General of Police] to act upon his different representations and take action against his employer. Mr. Hanumanthappa B, Haravigowdar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Rahul Cariappa, the learned Additional Government Advocate who is called upon to accept notice for the first to the seventh respondents, are heard on whether this Court must intervene with - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37311 WP No. 26451 of 2025 Mr. Hanumanthappa B, Haravigowdar submitting that the petitioner is constrained because the jurisdictional police [the fifth respondent] has even refused to receive a complaint. Mr. Hanumanthappa B Haravigowdar also proposes to rely upon a certain statements recorded by the fifth respondent as part of investigation in Crime No.112/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. This Court must opine that the relevant facts must be considered by the competent if the petitioner avails due remedy under the law to file a private complaint and there is no reason for this Court to intervene. As such, subject to all just exceptions, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE RB