The High Court emphasized the need for strict compliance with the Supreme Court's directions regarding the uploading of FIRs and the exercise of power to prevent the abuse of process of court.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 o f the Constitution o f India read with Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C., the petitioner has sought the following relie fs: "1. Issue a writ o f certiorari or any other appropriate writs quashing the First Information Report in crime No.95/2020 of the Moodbidri Police Station pending on the file of the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC Court Moodabidre, vide Annexure - D.

2. Issue appropriate writ or direction directing the respondents to pay compensation of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 to the petitioner.

3. Issue appropriate writ or directions directing the respondent No .1 to hold enquiry regarding the illegalities and lapses in registration o f criminal case and take appropriate actions against respondent-2/police official and respondent No.3 responsible for illegal registration of the FIR.

4. Issue appropriate writ or direction to the Government of Karnataka/ respondent No.1 directing them to upload all the First Information Reports within one hour of the registration of FIR, in the official website of the concerned police stations and also on the concerned police commissionerate/Office of the Superintendent Police of the concerned District.

5. Issue appropriate writs or directions to the respondent No.1, submit compliance report regarding the steps taken to comply with the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Youth Bar Association of India V/s. Union of India and Another reported in [(2016) 9 SCC 473]; [(2016) 3 SCC/Cri) 691: 2016 SCC Online SC 914 vide Annexure - F regarding the uploading o f the FIR in the official website and respondent No .1 may also be directed to publish the web portals of all the police stations of the state and commissionerate/ District headquarter wherein the First Information Reports would be uploaded". 2. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner Sri. P.P.Hegde submitted that he would not press the reliefs 2 and 3. 3. At the instance of the third respondent, the second respondent police registered an FIR against the petitioner in Cr.No.95/2020 for the o ffences punishable under Sec. 353, 506 and 507 of IPC. The petitioner is a member of Kallamandkuru Gram Panchayat. He is also a member of Kallamandkuru Vyavasaya Seva Sahakara Sangha Niyamitha. He claims to be a public spirited person involved in various social activities. It is stated in the writ petition that on the onslaught of Covid-19, he involved himself in identifying the poor and the destitute, and supplying to them the essential commodities. He noticed that the PDO of the Panchayat, i.e., respondent No.3 was negligent in discharging his duties in taking effective steps for containing the spread o f Covid-19. Therefore he espoused the cause of public by raising an objection in regard to the inefficiency of the third respondent in discharging his duties. He circulated a message through whatsapp in this regard. Then he started receiving phone calls from respondent No.3 . The petitioner tried to obtain certain information under RTI, which would have exposed the malpractices and corrupt methods adopted by respondent No.3 in discharging the public duty. This being the background, on 10/4/2020 the petitioner came to know that an FIR had been registered against him in Cr.No.95/2020 at Moodbidre Police Station on the allegation that he had circulated a post on social media against respondent No.3. The petitioner stated that third respondent being a public servant influenced the police to register FIR for non bailable o ffences even though he had not committed any offence. Therefore the petitioner has filed this writ petition for above mentioned reliefs. 4. I heard Sri. P.P .Hegde, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, Sri. B.J.Rohith, learned Government Pleader for respondents No .1 and 2 and Sri. K. Anandarama, learned counsel for respondent No.3. 5. It was the argument of Sri. P.P.Hegde that the second respondent police yielded to third respondent for registering an FIR for the offences unde