Back
2023 Supreme(Kar) 704
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT DHARWAD
S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.
Shree Basavanand Swamigalu – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka & Ors. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 100082 of 2023 (GM-POLICE)
Decided On : 16-02-2023
Sri Sachin C.Angadi, Advocate, for the Appellant; Sri Prashant V.Mogali, Hcgp, for the Respondent.
The court upheld the rights of visually disabled individuals under the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and directed the police to register an FIR based on the specific allegations of disability rights violations.
Headnote:
Disability Rights - Quashing of Police Endorsement - The court set aside the endorsement rejecting the complaint of a visually disabled petitioner, directing the police to register an FIR under the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought quashing of the endorsement rejecting their complaint, citing specific allegations of being visually disabled and offenses under the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the complaint was based on an erroneous premise, contrary to the averments made in the complaint, and directed the police to set aside the endorsement and register an FIR.
Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the complaint by the police based on an erroneous premise and the petitioner's specific allegations of being visually disabled and offenses under the Disability Rights Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the erroneous premise on which the complaint was rejected, the specific allegations of disability rights violations, and the need to uphold the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in a relevant case.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the impugned endorsement was quashed, and the respondent was directed to register the FIR pursuant to the petitioner's complaint and proceed further in the matter expeditiously.
ORDER
1. In this petition, the petitioner seeks quashing of the impugned endorsement at Annexure-B dated 19.10.2022 issued by the Police Inspector, CEN Police Station, Dharwad District, whereby the complaint dated 15.09.2022 submitted by the petitioner was rejected.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record, in particular Annexure-A dated 15.09.2022 will clearly indicate that apart from other offences said to have been committed against the petitioner-complainant, it is a specific allegation of the petitioner that he is a visually disabled and the offence committed against him are attracted by Section 92 of the Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and consequently necessary action is to be taken by the respondent-Police against the accused person. However, a perusal of the impugned endorsement at Annexure-B dated 19.10.2022 will indicate that the complaint of the petitioner has been rejected on the erroneous premise that only recourse available for the petitioner was to sue for defamation which is contrary to the averments made in the complaint, which go to show that the same constitute a cognizable offence. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that Annexure-B deserves to be set aside and necessary directions are to be issued to the Police. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is hereby allowed.
ii. The impugned endorsement dated 19.10.2022 at Annexure-B issued by the 1st respondent is hereby quashed.
iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to register the FIR pursuant to the petitioner's complaint at Annexure-A dated 15.09.2022 and proceed further in the matter bearing in mind the principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of XYZ Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. reported in 2022 SAR Online (SC) 699 as expeditiously as possible.
