Mr. K. Chalapathi Reddy v. State of Karnataka by

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO. 17212 OF 2022 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN:

MR. K. CHALAPATHI REDDY, S/O THIRUPATHI REDDY, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT 672, 6TH B CROSS, BEHIND BDA COMPELX, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560034. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL KUMAR H..,ADVOCATE) AND:

¶1STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE HOME SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶2THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, INFANTRY ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶3THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (SOUTH-EAST), KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095.

¶4THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KORAMANGALA POLICE STATION, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE-560095.

¶5MR KALINGAPPA, SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KORAMANGALA POLICE STATION,

by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA NC:(2025:KHC:52623( WP(No.(17212(of(2022( ( , ,,HC-KAR( ( ( KORAMANGALA,,BANGALORE-560095., ,

6., THE,REGISTRAR,GENERAL,, HIGH,COURT,OF,KARNATAKA,, DR,AMBEDKAR,VEEDHI,, BANGALORE-560001., ,

7., MR,DHRUVARAMA,REDDY,, S/O,KODANDA,RAMA,REDDY,, AGED,ABOUT,37,YEARS,, RESIDING,AT,NO.A802,,A,BLOCK,, SALARPURIA,SENORITA,, SARJAPURA,MAIN,ROAD,, HALANAYAKANAHALLI,, BANGALORE-560035., …RESPONDENTS, (BY,SRI,MAHANTESH,SHETTAR,,AGA,FOR,R1,TO,R5, ,(MA,NOT,FILED),, ,SMT,SUSHEELA,S,,SENIOR,COUNSEL,A/W,, ,SRI,SOMANATHA,H,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R6), , , THIS, WRIT, PETITION, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, DIRECT,THE,R1,,TO,3,TO,CONSIDER,THE,REPRESENTATION,OF, THE,PETITIONER,DTD,,8.7.2022,AND,TAKE,ACTION,AGAINST, THE,R5,FOR,ABUSE,OF,PROCESS,OF,LAW,AND,DERELICTION, OF,DUTY,VIDE,ANNEXURE-A,,A1,AND,A2.,ISSUE,DIRECTIONS, TO, R1, AND, 2, TO, TRANSFER, THE, INVESTIGATION, IN, FIR, NO.171/2021, REGISTERED, IN, KORAMANGALA, POLICE, STATION,DTD,14.08.2021,TO,THE,CCB,OR,CID,OF,POLICE,FOR, INVESTIGATION,VIDE,ANNEXURE-D,AND,ETC.,, , THIS, PETITION,, COMING, ON, FOR, PRELIMINARY, HEARING,,THIS,DAY,,ORDER,WAS,MADE,THEREIN,AS,UNDER:, CORAM:, ,HON'BLE,MR.,JUSTICE,E.S.INDIRESH, , , , , ,

ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsels appearing for the respective parties.

¶2In this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for writ of mandamus against respondent Nos.1 to 3 to consider the representations dated 08.07.2022, against the respondent No.5 for abuse of process of law and dereliction of duty vide Annexure-A series, inter-alia sought for a direction to the Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka to initiate perjury proceedings against the accused person-Mr. Dhruvaram Reddy for producing fake and fabricated documents before this Court in Crl.P.No.4225/2021 (Annexure-C).

¶3It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, the petitioner is not pressing prayer (b). It is contented by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner is a complainant in Crime No.68/2020, Koramangala Police Station. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by referring to the order dated

06.07.2021 in Crl.P.No.4225/2021 (Annexure-C), wherein, the petitioner herein was arraigned as respondent No.2. In the said proceedings, respondent No. 5 had produced fake documents

before this Court and in this regard, the petitioner has approached the Koramangala Police Station, with regard to the abuse of power made allegation against the accused/respondent No.7 in this writ petition.

¶4It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, the respondent No.5 colluded with respondent No.7 in respect of production of fake documents before this Court and that apart, it is a clear case of dereliction of duty by the respondent No.5, and therefore sought for interference of this Court.

¶5Lastly, it is the case of the petitioner that the respondent Nos.1 to be directed to consider the representations produced at Annexure-A series to take action against the respondent No.5, for having threatened the petitioner herein and joining hands with the respondent No.7 herein by delaying the investigation process and accordingly sought for interference of this Court.

¶6Per contra, Smt.Susheela.S., learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of Sri.Somanatha H., learned counsel for respondent No.6, referred to the judgment of this

Court at Annexure-C and submitted that no finding has been recorded by this Court as to the documents being forged or fake as contented by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and what is forthcoming from the order passed by this Court in Crl.No.4225/2021 are only contentions raised by the parties and therefore, the prayer made in the writ petition does not survive for consideration.

¶7Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 5 submitted that, the charge sheet is filed before the competent Court in Crime No.171/2021 and therefore, the writ petition does not survive for consideration.

¶8In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and upon careful consideration of the arguments advanced by thelearned counsels appearing for the parties, wherein, it is the grievance of the petitioner that respondent Nos.5 and 7 have colluded with each other to produce fabricated documents before this Court in Crl.No.4225/2021.

¶9On careful examination of the observations made by this Court, it would indicate that, ultimately the criminal petition came to be rejected by order dated 06.07.2021. It is also not disputed by the parties that the investigation is completed and charge-sheet has been filed before the Competent Court.

¶10In that view of the matter, though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently, contended as to the involvement of respondent No.5 is concerned, however, it is open for the petitioner to approach the competent authority to take action against respondent No.5 in a manner known to law. However, this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot embark upon the averments made in the representation at Annexure-A series and to direct respondent Nos.1 to 3 to take action against respondent No.5 unless an enquiry is to be made in a particular proceeding as such.

¶11In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that respondent Nos.1 to 3 cannot be ordered to consider the

representations produced at Annexure series. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner as stated.

With this observation, the writ petition is disposed of.

Sd/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

NM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16