Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.
Shree Basavanand Swamigalu – Petitioner
versus
State of Karnataka and Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition No.100082 of 2023 (GM-Police)
Decided on 16.2.2023
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Sri Sachin C. Angadi, Advocate
For the Respondents: Sri Prashant V. Mogali, HCGP
IMPORTANT POINT
Complaint relating to cognizable offences cannot be rejected on erroneous premise.
Headnote:
Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Section 92 – Constitution of India – Articles 226 and 227 – Rejection of complaint – Apart from other offences said to have been committed against petitioner-complainant, it is a specific allegation of petitioner that he is a visually disabled and offence committed against him are attracted by Section 92 of Right of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and consequently necessary action is to be taken by respondent-Police against accused person – However, complaint of petitioner has been rejected on erroneous premise that only recourse available for petitioner was to sue for defamation which is contrary to averments made in complaint, which go to show that the same constitute a cognizable offence – Impugned endorsement quashed and Respondent No.2 is directed to register FIR pursuant to petitioner’s complaint and proceed further in the matter. (Para 3)
Result: Petition allowed.
ORDER
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.
