Partly allowed¶¶40

Smt. Kasthuri Hiremani v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC21 Aug 2025WP/102638/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court Dharwad Bench; Suraj Govindaraj J; WP No. 102638 of 2025 (GM-POLICE); Article 226 Article 227 Constitution of India; mandamus to police to act on complaint dated 11.03.2025; subsequent complaint 14.03.2025; FIR Crime No.40/2025 registered; Vidyagiri Police Station; Hubli-Dharwad Commissionerate; investigation delay; petitioner's statement not recorded; direction to complete investigation within 60 days; writ petition partly allowed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition partly allowed; mandamus issued directing respondent No.4 (Circle Inspector, Vidyagiri Police Station) to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible, preferably within 60 days from receipt of a copy of the order. ¶¶40

Smt. Kasthuri Hiremani Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10620 WP No. 102638 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 102638 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. KASTHURI HIREMANI AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. HANUMANTH NAGAR, DHARWAD-580009.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. GIRISH V. BHAT, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SAROJA HANGARAKI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, M.S. BUILDING, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU- 560001.

¶16

THE POLICE COMMISSIONER HUBLI - DHARWAD COMMISSIONERATE, NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI- 580025.

¶17

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE SADHANKERI, POLICE HEAD QUARTER’S, DHARWAD -580008.

¶18

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR VIDYAGIRI POLICE STATION, VIDYAGIRI, DHARWAD- 580002.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 TO R4)

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC-D:10620 WP No. 102638 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO I. ISSUE A WRIT OR A DIRECTION OR AN APPROPRIATE ORDER IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO ACT UPON THE COMPLAINT DATED 11.03.2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION.II. PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS THE PETITIONERS DEEMED FIT AND PROPER IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ)

¶28

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the

¶29

following reliefs:

¶30

i. Issue a writ or a direction or an appropriate order in the nature of mandamus directing the 4^th Respondent to act upon the complaint dated 11.03.2025 vide Annexure-A to the writ petition.

¶31

ii. Pass such other orders and grant such other reliefs the petitioners deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶32

By way of the present writ petition, what is sought for is a mandamus to direct respondent No.4 to act upon the complaint dated 11.03.2025 at Annexure-A.

¶33

Post the complaint dated 11.03.2025, the petitioner had submitted another complaint on 14.03.2025 in

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:10620 WP No. 102638 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

pursuance to which, FIR in Crime No.40/2025 has already been registered. Hence, the question of acting on the earlier complaint dated 11.03.2025 would not arise.

¶37

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the investigation has not been progressed in the said matter and the statement of the petitioner is yet to be recorded.

¶38

In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶39

ORDER

¶40

i. Writ petition is partly allowed.

¶41

ii. A mandamus is issued directing respondent No.4 to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶42

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶43

SH Ct:pa List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45

Smt. Kasthuri Hiremani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Kasthuri Hiremani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri. Harish @ Harish Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Siddanagouda S/O Parvathagouda Marichannappagoudar Vs Smt Basavva W/O Neelappa Gundudi

Sri Chandrashekhar Vs Sri Kariyappa

Shri. Sanjiv S/O Venkatrao Rayar Vs Smt. Shruti W/O Sanjay Rayar D/O Subhash Dikshit

Mr Inesio Almeida Coutinho S/O Jose Pedro Countinho Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri. Manjunath S/O Shankrppa Bandi Vs the State of Karnataka