AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ajit J. Gunjal, J.—The petitioner is a Church. A senior Pastor of the Church purchased the subject matter of the property from one Smt. Krishnamma on 14.12.2000. It appears, some elements tried to demolish the compound of the Church. It appears, a complaint is lodged on 14.02.2009 bringing to the knowledge of the jurisdictional police about this incident. Copy of the complaint is to be found at Annexure-D. Surprisingly enough, respondent No. 3 does not register a complaint. But however, only gives an endorsement. Since no action is taken for over a period of one year from the date of the lodging of the complaint, the petitioner is before this Court.
Apparently, whenever a complaint is lodged alleging certain criminal acts, it is the bounden duty of the jurisdictional police to register the case and investigate the matter. Indeed, for every inaction of the police, the complainant cannot be compelled to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and seek a writ of mandamus. Having regard to the fact that a complaint is lodged on 14.02.2009, the jurisdictional police are required to register the case.
Hence, the following order is passed:
Let a writ of mandamus be issued to the third respondent, to register the complaint lodged on 14.02.2009. The jurisdictional police shall investigate into the complaint and if it is of the view that the complaint is civil in nature, it can accordingly (sic) the petitioner.
Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Mr. N.B. Vishwanath, learned Additional Government Advocate is permitted to file memo of appearance within four weeks.