Site news

KSHRC HAS SOUGHT ACTIO TAKEN REPORT FROM POLICE FOR FILING UNTENABLE FIR UNDER 354(D) FOR PHOTOGRAPHING PUBLIC AT PUBLIC PLACE

 
 
Picture of System Administrator
KSHRC HAS SOUGHT ACTIO TAKEN REPORT FROM POLICE FOR FILING UNTENABLE FIR UNDER 354(D) FOR PHOTOGRAPHING PUBLIC AT PUBLIC PLACE
by System Administrator - Friday, 5 June 2015, 11:53 PM
 

By : M.S.Yatnatti: Editor and Video Journalist Bengaluru : KSHRC has asked action taken report from DCP Central on complaint dated 02-03-2015 in HRC 1314/2015 as an untenable case is registered by Sadashivanagr Police Station.I have asked Bangaluru police to provide me information whether police has power under section 4(I) (a) (b) (c) RTI Act to slap SECTION 354(D) IPC and SECTION 506 IPC for photographing a public event happening at public park and reasons under section 4(I) (a) (b) (c) (d) RTI Actfor filing false and fabricated FIR 16/2015 in Sadashivanagar police station against Mallikarjuna L.S.when complaint is only about photograph taken at public event at public park. This information asked is about initiating "FIR” itself and I have asked police not to reply in routine that that police is investigating the case and no reply can be given .When police has no power to file "FIR” itself under section 4(I) (a) (b) (c)RTI Act andslap SECTION 354(D) IPC and SECTION 506 IPC for photographing a public event happening at public parkand when complaint is only about photograph taken at public event at public park then question of police having power to investigate the case does not arise ,.

First Information Report (FIR) can be filed immediately upon receipt of complaints if the information disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence and if it does not disclose the commission of a cognizable offence no FIR can be filed by Police. Fewwoman's who are related to SWA had complained to Sadashivanagr Police Station that Mallikarjuna L.S RTI activists who had taken photograph of event at public place with the help of his friend to produce before lokayukta. And police filed FIR against him under 354(d) of IPC. As taking photos in India in a public place is not a crime under any section of IPC then why police officers at Sadashivanagr Police Station filed FIR 16/2015 under section 354 (d) and 506 against Maalikaujun L.S . The police itself are taking photographs of all citizens as it has put up several thousand CCTV Cameras all over Bangalore at many public places..Wherefore taking photographs at public places is not crime and no FIR can be booked against Mallikarjuna L.S .FIR need to be quashed by police department or let the police file B-Report or Let Home department withdraw the false case by taking it to state cabinet. In a reported article quotes a lawyer who suggests this case is a slam dunk... as well as another who said there's no way the case gets anywhere, as there's nothing wrong with taking a photo of someone in a public place .

The BDA is THE PUBLIC AUTHORITY under obligation to provide information "PUBLICLY” under section 4(I) (a) (b) (c) (d) RTI Act.Sadashivanagar club stands on "CA site” meant for library & BDA 'can't put "CA site” to other use'..Mallikarjun L.Sis whistle blower and brought several irregularities in public domain committed by Sadashivanagar club and SRWA and need police protection and protection by Government of Karnataka. Sadashivanagar club stands on "CA site” meant for international library & BDA 'can't put "CA site” to other use'.WhereforeBDA should cancel allotment and renewal of lease and return back the lease amount deposited by DD which is not en-cashed by BDA and issue eviction noticeto "Sadashivanagar club” as Sadashivanagar club stands on "CA site” meant for international library. As Supreme Court has in a case while dismissing appeals filed by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) questioning the 2011 order of the Karnataka High Court, which had set aside allotment of a CA site to BPCL in 2005 for opening a petrol station at CA Site No-2, HRBR Layout (Kalyan Nagar and ruled that BDA 'can't put CA site to other use'. Putting a break on the practice of diverting a civic amenity (CA) site earmarked for a particular use, the Supreme Court has ruled that the State government and the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) have no power to allot CA sites for use other than that earmarked in the master plan.In the similar wayBDA should cancel allotment and renewal of lease and return back the lease amount deposited by DD which is not en-cashed by BDA and issue eviction noticeto "Sadashivanagar club” as Sadashivanagar club stands on "CA site” meant for international library & BDA 'can't put "CA site” to other use' and immediately take over the CA site with buildingand convert the same building as international library and give it CA site along with building KarnatakaLibrary department Government of Karnatakafor making it as international library .