Dismissed¶51

Shri. Mallikarjuna S/O Basvaraj Koni v. Superintendent of Police

Writ of mandamus under Articles 226 and 227 – police inaction

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2025WP/103503/2025

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Dharwad Bench; WP No. 103503 of 2025 (GM-POLICE); Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur; decided 01-07-2025; mandamus under Articles 226 & 227 for refusal to entertain complaint of tree-cutting at Nandgad Police Station, Belagavi; allegations held unsubstantiated and civil in nature; no acknowledged representation; petition dismissed; liberty reserved for civil and criminal proceedings; reference to PC No.1154/2019 Khanapur Court.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court for initiating proceedings of civil and criminal acts against the concerned persons; the order does not preclude lodging a criminal case before the police authorities. ¶51

Shri. Mallikarjuna S/O Basvaraj Koni Vs… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus should issue directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation (Annexure-C) regarding the alleged cutting of trees on his land without permission. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

The allegations against the two named persons are unsubstantiated and are in the nature of civil litigation; the petitioner must establish them in the private complaint or before the civil Court, and the Court is not satisfied that mandamus should issue.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

There is no application or representation given by the petitioner which is acknowledged; accordingly the mandamus sought cannot be granted.

¶46

Key takeaways

The petition is dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court for initiating proceedings of civil and criminal acts against the concerned persons.ratio¶51
The dismissal shall not preclude the petitioner from lodging any criminal case against such persons before the police authorities in accordance to law.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ of mandamus under Articles 226 and 227 - police inaction - Petitioner, an advocate owning agricultural land in Belagundi Village (Survey No.99), alleged that Imamsahab Kittur and Yashwant planned to cut trees on his land without permission; his complaint at Nandgad Police Station was allegedly not entertained, with harassment and demand of illegal gratification claimed, and the Superintendent of Police, Belagavi allegedly refused to register an FIR. The State contended the petitioner never approached the police station nor made any representation, and his grievance was already the subject of private complaint PC No.1154/2019 before the Khanapur Court. Held: the allegations are unsubstantiated and civil in nature, to be established in the private complaint or before the civil Court; no acknowledged application/representation exists on record; mandamus declined. Petition dismissed with liberty to initiate civil and criminal proceedings, and without precluding lodging of a criminal case before the police authorities.

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8227 WP No. 103503 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY 2025

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 103503 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SHRI MALLIKARJUNA S/O. BASVARAJ KONI, AGE: 63 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE, R/O. KHANAPUR, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 302.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. MAHANTESH S. HIREMATH, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, RTO CIRCLE, BELAGAVI-590 001.

¶12

CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, NANDGAD POLICE STATION,

¶13

TQ: NANDAGAD, DIST: BELAGAVI-581 120.

¶14

VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI

¶15

STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NANDGAD POLICE STATION

¶16

TQ: NANDAGAD, DIST: BELAGAVI-591 120.

¶17

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶18

(BY SRI. SHARAD MAGADUM, HCGP)

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING CONSIDER REPRESENTATION WHICH IS PRODUCED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE-C VIDE ORDER DATED ON 18/3/25 AND ETC.

¶21

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

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8227 WP No. 103503 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)

¶27

Learned AGA is directed to take notice for the

¶28

respondents.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶30

The present petition is filed by the petitioner, who claims to be a practicing advocate in Belagavi District Court. It is his case that, he is having agricultural land in Belagundi Village in Survey No.99, measuring 4 acres 30 guntas, wherein he is growing certain vegetables and cultivating the land.

¶31

It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that, one person by name Imamsahab Kittur, alngwith Yashwant, hatched a plan to cut the trees at that place without the permission of petitioner, due to which the petitioner went to the police station and lodged a complaint, which was refused by the respondents. Hence

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8227 WP No. 103503 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

he filed a private complaint against the said person before

¶35

the Khanapur Court in PC No.1154/2019.

¶36

This being the state of affairs, the petitioner went to Nandgad Police Station to lodge a complaint but the CPI and the SHO in the said Police Station did not entertain the complaint and harassed the petitioner by making him sit in the Police Station from morning to evening without initiating any action and on the contrary threatened the petitioner that a case would be initiated against him and so also it is alleged that money is demanded from the petitioner for illegal gratification. The petitioner claims to have approached the Superintendent of Police, Belagavi to register FIR but the same is refused. Hence, he is before this Court through this writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus.

¶37

Learned AGA for the respondents/State, upon instructions, submits that the petitioner has not approached the police station for lodging any complaint.

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8227 WP No. 103503 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

The photograph produced and Annexure-C/complaint has not been taken in the police station during lodging any complaint. The photograph is taken only to create the evidence to present before this Court. The petitioner has not approached the Police Station and not made any representation wanting the respondents to initiate any action for any cognizable offence. Therefore, the present petition itself is not maintainable. If the petitioner has any grievance, as he has already initiated a private complaint, the same can be agitated in the said proceedings. It is also contended that, the say of the petitioner that he has approached the Superintendent of Police, Belagavi, is also false, as no documents are produced to show that such an attempt has been made. On these grounds, he seeks to dismiss the petition, as it does not warrant issuance of mandamus.

¶41

I have heard the learned counsel for the

¶42

petitioner and the learned AGA for the respondents/State.

¶43

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8227 WP No. 103503 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

It appears that the petitioner has certain

¶46

grievance against the two persons named in the PCR and the petition, who have hatched some plan to cut the trees without permission of the petitioner. All these allegations made are not substantiated. They are in the nature of civil litigation and it is for the petitioner to establish the same either in the private complaint or before the civil Court as to what is the relationship of the petitioner with Yeshwant and one Imamsahab Kittur or whether any illegal acts are committed by these two persons. Under the circumstances, I am not satisfied with the argument put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner for issuance of mandamus in the present case. So also it is seen that there is no application/representation given which is acknowledged.

¶47

Under the circumstances, I pass the following

¶48

order:

¶49

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:8227 WP No. 103503 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

This petition is dismissed. Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Court for initiating proceedings of civil and criminal acts against the concerned persons.

¶52

This order shall not preclude the petitioner from lodging any criminal case against such persons before the police authorities in accordance to law.

¶53

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶54

kmv – para 5 to end

¶55

gab – upto para 4

Shri. Mallikarjuna S/O Basvaraj Koni v. Superintendent of Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Mallikarjuna S/O Basvaraj Koni v. Superintendent of Police

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

Nagaraj Venkataraman Palankar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sidrai Kannappa Naik Vs Balu India

Sudha Wife of Convict Vs State of Karnataka

Shri Basavanni S/O Ningappa Hukkeri R/by Lrs Vs the State of Karnataka

Shamsunder James Deodhar Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Renukadevi D.O. Basappa Baragi Vs the Commissiner