SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Kar) 942

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
K.N. Phaneendra, J.
Sportingmindz Technology Private Limited – Appellant
Vs.
State of Karnataka and Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 48860 of 2014 (GM-RES)
Decided On : 28.10.2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Guru Prasanna S.
For the Respondents: Nasrulla Khan, H.C.G.P.

Headnote:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - Article 226: [K. N. Phaneendra, J] Writ of Mandamus - Petitioner filed complaint before cyber crime police for offence under Sections 43(j), 65, 66(B) of I. T. Act - Writ petition filed on ground that investigating officer not made any efforts for seizure of articles belonging to respondent - Held, No mandamus can be issued to investigating officer to conduct investigation in a particular manner. Proper course for petitioner is to approach higher police officer and seek remedy for change of investigating officer.

ORDER

K.N. Phaneendra, J.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court seeking Writ of Mandamus, directing the second respondent for seizure of passport along with all the equipment, data, computers, software programmes, compact discs (CDs.), drives, hardware and all forms of data storage and transfer in the possession of respondent No. 3 in connection with Crime No. 37/2014 on the file of Cyber Crime Police Station, Palace Road, Bangalore. It is an undisputed fact that petitioner has filed a complaint before the Cyber Crime Police Station, Sub-Division CID, CID Annexe Building, Carlton House, Palace Road, Bangalore on 23.9.2014 and the police have registered the said case in Crime No. 37/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 43(j), 65, 66(B) of the Information Technology Act (hereinafter referred to as 'IT Act' for short) and started the investigation. It is contended that the investigating officer has not made any efforts for seizure of the articles which are very important so far as this case is concerned.

2. Though the petitioner has sought for a direction to the investigating officer, I feel that if the court: directs the investigating officer to conduct investigation in a particular manner, in my opinion, it amounts to interference with the investigation by the investigating officer. If the petitioner is not satisfied with the investigation conducted by the investigating officer or the investigation to be done in a particular manner by the investigating officer, he has to bring it to the notice of the Higher-Officers of the investigating officer and seek remedy for change of the investigating officer or/any direction by the superior officer to the investigating officer to conduct investigation in a particular manner. Therefore, the petitioner is at liberty to make such necessary application or petition before the competent authority, explaining his difficulties and also the need of the seizure of the articles as mentioned in this Writ Petition. If such an application is filed before the competent authority, the authority has to apply its mind and pass appropriate Order in accordance with law.

With this observation, the petition stands disposed off.



Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top