AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M G Uma, J
Petitioner has approached this Court seeking issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondent No.5 to countersign/attest the complaint, and to present the same before the Jurisdictional Magistrate i.e, the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Gowribidanur through the family members of the petitioner and also to direct respondent No.5 to produce the petitioner before the jurisdictional Magistrate either physically or through video conference.
Heard Sri. Amar Alexander Correa, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondent. Perused the materials on record.
It is the contention of the petitioner that the FIR in Cr.No.113/2025 of Manchenahalli police station was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 115(1), 118(1), 109 R/w Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'the BNS) and Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 against him.
It is stated that, in the incident, the petitioner has only acted in self-defence. But he sustained grievous injuries on his head and other parts of the body. The wound certificate issued by the Jain Mission Hospital, Chikkaballapura, is produced as per Annexure-E. It is also the contention of the petitioner that immediately after the incident, the petitioner had in fact given a complaint to the jurisdictional police, which was not acknowledged by the police. It is stated that the complaint that was filed by the petitioner was emailed to the Circle Inspector of Police, Chikkaballapura Police, on the very date of incident in the midnight. It is further contended that even respondent No.5 is not attesting or countersigning the complaint for filing private complaint.
Considering the materials on record in the light of the contentions taken by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled for issuance of writ of mandamus, directing respondent No.5 to countersign/attest to the complaint to be filed by the petitioner before the Jurisdictional Magistrate. However, it is for the jurisdictional Magistrate to direct the Prison Authority either to produce the petitioner either physically or through video conference as and when the necessity arises. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ petition is allowed.
(ii) Respondent No.5 is directed to countersign/attest the complaint, and the affidavit to be filed by the petitioner before the Jurisdictional Magistrate and permit the petitioner to handover the same to his family members for presentation before the Court.
Hand delivery of the order is permitted.