- 1 -

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

BEFORE

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

WRIT PETITION NO.1696 OF 2017 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

SRI K GURUPADA GOWDA

S/O RUDRAPPA GOWDA K

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS

INDIHALLI VILLAGE

ULUVI HOBLI

SORBA TALUK

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 429.

... PETITIONER

(BY SRI MANJUNATHA H.V , ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

HOME DEPARTMENT

VIKASA SOUDHA

AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

BENGALURU – 560 001.

REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY

2.

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT

SHIVAMOGGA -577 201

3.

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER

SORBA POLICE STATION

SORABA

SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT – 577 429

... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI ACHAPPA P.B, AGA)

---

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND

227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE

- 2 -

R-3 TO COMPLETE THE INVESTIGATION IN CRIME NO.

109/2016 AND SUMBIT THE REPORT TO THE JURISDICTIONAL

MAGISTRATE IMMEDIATELY.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY THIS

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

The petitioner is seeking for a writ of mandamus

directing the third respondent to complete the investigation in

Crime No.109/2016 and to submit a report to the jurisdictional

Magistrate.

2. It is the case of petitioner that on the basis of a

complaint, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.109/2016 for

the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read

with Section 34 of IPC against Rudrappa Gowda, Gururaj

Gowda and the Manager, Karnataka Bank, Soraba Branch, on

27.05.2016. He states that accused Nos.1 and 2 are none

other than the father and brother of the petitioner. It is the

further case of petitioner that his father and brother/accused

Nos.1 and 2 colluded with accused No.3-the Bank Authority

availed agricultural loan by furnishing false documents and

information, thereby accused have cheated the petitioner and

misused public money. After registering the complaint, second

respondent forwarded the same to third respondent for further

- 3 -

investigation. Despite several months and years have been

passed, no investigation has been conducted and no final

report has been submitted by third respondent. Therefore, it is

the contention of petitioner that the accused are hand in glove

with the investigating agency in protracting and delaying the

submission of the final report.

3. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before

this Court by virtue of this petition for a direction to the

respondent-Police to submit the final report.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that

despite complaint having been given in the year 2016 against

the accused, investigation has not been completed by the

respondent-Police. It is his grievance that the accused are

highly influential and have interfered with the investigation,

which has caused the delay thereby, the respondent-Police has

failed to complete the investigation and submit the final report.

5. On the contrary, Sri P.B.Achappa, learned Additional

Government Advocate contends that the writ petition itself is

not maintainable, in view of the fact that if the petitioner has

any grievance with regard to non conducting of investigation by

the respondent-Police pursuant to the FIR being registered,

- 4 -

primarily, he has to explore the remedy available under the

provisions of Cr.P.C. before venturing into filing this

adventurous writ petition seeking for an extraordinary

jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of

India. He further contends that the petitioner would have the

right to approach this Court only if there are no other

alternative, suitable and efficacious remedy before the other

forums under other provisions of law.

6. Learned Additional Government Advocate relied on

the decision of th