Mr Vivek Raj vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 August, 2014

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Mr Vivek Raj vs The State Of Karnataka on 22 August, 2014

Bench: A.N. Venugopala Gowda

                             1




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

        DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2014

                        BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWDA

        WRIT PETITION NO.16687/2014 (GM-POLICE)


BETWEEN:

Mr. VIVEK RAJ, AGED 31 YEARS,
SON OF B. RAJENDRA,
C.E.O. OF PANAMA MINING INDUSTRIES
CORPORATION LIMITED,
RESIDING AT FLAT NO.301,
MOHTISHAM HERITAGE APARTMENT,
OPPOSITE: GANDHI NAGAR PARK,
GANDHI NAGAR,
MANGALORE-575 003.
                                           ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI P.P. HEGDE, ADV.)


AND:

1.      THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
        REP. BY ITS SECRETARY,
        MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS,
        VIDHANA SOUDHA,
        BANGALORE - 560 001.

2.      THE DIRECTOR GENERAL & INSPECTOR
        GENERAL OF POLICE,
        NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
        BANGALORE - 575 001.
                             2




3.   THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
     MANGALORE CITY,
     MANGALORE-575 001.

4.   THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
     BARKE POLICE STATION, BARKE,
     MANGALORE-575 006.
                                        ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI R. OM KUMAR, AGA)

      THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO DIRECT THE
RESPONDENTS TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE POLICE PROTECTION
TO THE PETITIONER BY DEPUTING ARMED POLICE GUNMAN AT
THE COST OF THE PETITIONER AS REQUESTED BY THE
PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE-E.

       THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                         ORDER

This writ petition was filed on 02.04.2014, to direct the respondents to provide adequate police protection by deputing armed police / gunmen, at the cost of the petitioner, as per the request made vide Annexure- E.

2. Heard Sri P.P. Hegde, learned advocate for the petitioner and Sri R. Om Kumar, learned AGA for the respondents.

3. Petitioner has submitted a representation on 08.02.2014, to the Commissioner of Police, Mangalore, to provide security on account of the alleged threats from the underworld gangsters. According to him, there were threat calls from one Mr. Ravi Poojari, an alleged underworld don and thus, he is in need of security.

4. Affidavit of Sri S.S. Meti, Sub Inspector of Police, Barke Police Station, Barke, D.K. Dist. was filed by Sri Om Kumar. It is evident, that on a complaint dated 13.06.2013 of the petitioner, a case in Crime No.83/2013, for the offences punishable under Ss.506 & 507 of IPC was registered and on the basis of a subsequent complaint dated 03.11.2013, a case in Crime No.131/2013 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 507 & 387 of IPC. Yet another case in Crime No.35/14 has been registered for the offences punishable under Ss.387, 506 & 507 IPC. Thus, as and when the petitioner has submitted complaint/s, case/s have been registered and was investigated.

5. Petitioner runs a company by name "Panama Imports & Exports" and " Panama Trading". According to the affidavit of Sri S.S. Meti, petitioner has got a revolver for his personal self protection and petitioner being adequately rich and capable of having his own security arrangement, it is not possible for the Barke Police to provide police protection.

Since the complaints filed by the petitioner have been registered and are being investigated and the petitioner has got licence to hold revolver, for the present, I do not find justification to issue the mandamus as sought in this writ petition.

Writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

Sd/-

JUDGE sac*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court