Judgment:
1. In this writ petition, petitioner is seeking a direction to respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to initiate appropriate departmental proceedings against respondent No.3 by suspending him from his duties.
2. The case of the petitioner is that lie has filed a complaint before the learned Magistrate, Hosakote, Bangalore Rural District, on 22.09.2010 against one Muniramappa and Rajanna for the offences punishable under Sections 465, 466, 468 & 469 IPC. The learned Magistrate has forwarded the complaint under Section 156(3) of Cr.PC to respondent No.3 - Sub-Inspector of Police, Nandagudi Police Station, Bangalore Rural District, for investigation and posted the matter for tiling the report on 26-10.2010. However, according lo the petitioner, so far no action is taken by the police and therefore, respondent No.3 deserved to be proceeded against by initiation of departmental enquiry for his lapses.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that a representation is given by the petitioner to respondent Nos. 1& 2 requesting them to take action against the concerned police by initiating departmental proceedings, lie submits that a perusal of the complaint: filed, produced at Annexure-A discloses that the petitioner is making a grievance stating that his signature was fraudulently obtained and the sale deed was got registered on 21.06.1983. In contention is that accused No.1 - Muniramapna has made it appear that he had paid the consideration for the transaction to the complainant. It is further asserted that the complainant-petitioner continued to be in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property, but during the mouth, of July 2010. the said Muniraniappa forcibly and unlawfully evicted him from the property. However, after the intervention of the well-wishers and alter obtaining die relevant revenue records, it became clear to the complainant that the accused had forged the revenue records and also got forged the sale deed and therefore, he was constrained to lodge die complaint. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner taking support from the decision of the Apex Court in the case of LATHAKUMARI VS GOVERNMENT OF U.P. - 2008(7) SCC 164, that if a complaint is lodged before the police and no steps are taken for registration of FIRs immediately and copies thereof are not made over to the complainants, they may move the Magistrates concerned by filing complaint petitions to give direction to the police to register case immediately, whereupon the Magistrate may direct the registration of complaint and it may give direction to take immediate steps tor apprehending the accused persons and recovery of kidnapped/abducted persons and properties. Counsel contends that in the instant case though the learned Magistrate has referred the matter for investigation, the police have not registered any complaint and have not proceeded against the accused and therefore, he submits that action deserves to be initiated by holding departmental enquiry by keeping the officer concerned under suspension.
4. Learned Additional Government Advocate who has taken notice for the respondents submits that the entire grievance made in the private complaint is of a civil nature. At any rate, as a direction is issued by the Magistrate to conduct investigation, the police will carry out investigation and submit report. If at all the petitioner has any grievance, he has to put forth the same before the Magistrate where the matter is pending and there is absolutely no justification for the petitioner to approach this Hon'ble Court at this stage seeking initiation of departmental enquiry against the concerned officer.
5. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on consideration of the materials on record. 1 find that the petitioner has absolutely no justification to approach this Court seeking a direction to initial departmental proceedings against respondent No.3 - Sub-Inspector of Police. Nandagudi Police Station.
6. Petitioner has filed a private complaint. The learned Magistrate has taken cognizance of the same and has referred the matter for investigation to the police. As can be seen from the proceedings of the learned Magistrate in PCR No. 136/2010 the matter was adjourned to 29.11.2010 awaiting the report from the police. Petitioner has not furnished the next date to which the cast is posted. If the police have not yet conducted the investigation and have not submitted the report, it is for the petitioner to request the Magistrate to expedite the proceedings. As submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate, the police will take action in accordance with law and submit necessary report, to the Magistrate.
7. Petitioner has absolutely no justification lo approach this Court seeking a direction to initiate disciplinary proceeding against respondent No.3 - Sub-Inspector of Police. Petition is misconceived. The decision relied upon by the petitioner has no application lo the facts of this case. Petition is therefore dismissed.