Disposed¶44

Ms J R Shanthala v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Nov 2025WP/11138/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Police protection; police harassment; mahazar; Hoysala vehicle; police entry into house; Chaitra Ruby @ Pinky; Crime No.58/2025; NCR.No.50/2025; Ashoknagar Police Station; Commissioner of Police Bengaluru; State of Karnataka; Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India; GM-Police; investigation in accordance with law; petition disposed; Suraj Govindaraj J; High Court of Karnataka; WP No. 11138 of 2025; 18 November 2025.

What did the court decide?

No specific orders on the individual prayers; the Court accepted the learned AGA's submission that the investigation would be conducted in accordance with law without harassment as answering the petitioners' grievance, and directed the respondents to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible. ¶44

Ms J R Shanthala Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶44

Issue for consideration

Whether the 3rd respondent officials should be directed to give police protection to the petitioners. +1 more

¶29

Ratio / Principle

The Court accepted the learned AGA's submission that the investigation would be carried out in accordance with law and that there would be no harassment of the petitioners as apprehended, holding that this submission answered the grievance of the petitioners.

¶40

Key takeaways

The Court directed the respondents to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible, upon which the petition stood disposed of.ratio¶44

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (GM-Police) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by Ms J R Shanthala and Sri J R Ramesh before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, seeking (i) police protection from the 3rd respondent officials and (ii) restraint of harassment by the police — watching their house, following them, and making phone calls asking them to sign a Mahazar prepared in the police station with two witnesses. Following a fracas outside their house gate allegedly at the instance of one Chaitra Ruby @ Pinky, the police Hoysala vehicle attended, made enquiries, drew up a mahazar and the police personnel entered the petitioners' house; the petitioners, who had also filed a complaint in Crime No.58/2025 and NCR.No.50/2025 against Chaitra Ruby @ Pinky, apprehended police ill-treatment at her instance and behest. The learned AGA submitted that the investigation would be carried out in accordance with law and that there would be no harassment of the petitioners. Holding that this submission answered the petitioners' grievance, and directing the respondents to complete the investigation as expeditiously as possible, the Court disposed of the petition. (Suraj Govindaraj J, 18 November 2025.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:47398 WP No. 11138 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 11138 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

MS J R SHANTHALA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS D/O SRI. J.R.RAMACHANDRA NAIDU R/AT 6/1, MOYENVILLA ROAD LANGFORD TOWN, BENGALURU-25.

¶10

SRI J.R RAMESH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O SRI. J.R.RAMACHANDRA NAIDU R/AT 6/1, MOYENVILLA ROAD LANGFORD TOWN, BENGALURU-25.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SMT. RADHA JAYANTHI C S., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA V IDHANNAVEEDI, BENGALURU.

¶16

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU – 500001.

¶17

THE SHO ASHOKNAGAR POLICE STATION BENGALURU-560025

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. SIDARTH BABU RAO, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 3RD

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC:47398 WP No. 11138 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

RESPONDENT OFFICIALS TO GIVE POLICE PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONERS, II. DIRECT THE R3 OFFICIALS NOT TO HARASS THE PETITIONERS BY WATCHING THEIR HOUSE, FOLLOWING THEM AND NOT TO MAKE PHONE CALLS ASKING THEM TO SIGN MAHAZAR PREPARED IN THE POLICE STATION BY ASKING THE PETITIONERS TO BRING TWO WITNESSES FOR SIGNATURE TO THE MAHAZAR REPORT AND ETC.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The Petitioners are before this Court seeking for the

¶28

following reliefs;

¶29

i) Directing the 3rd respondent officials to give Police protection to the petitioners

¶30

ii) Directing the 3^rd respondent officials not to harass the petitioners by watching their house, following them and not to make phone calls asking them to sign Mahazar prepared in the police station by asking the petitioners to bring two witnesses for signature to the mahazar report.

¶31

iii) and issue such other orders as the hon’ble court feels deem fit to in the interest of justice .

¶32

There being a fracas outside the gate of the house of

¶33

the Petitioners, allegedly at the instance of one

¶34

Chaitra Ruby @ Pinky, the Hoysala vehicle of the police came to the said spot, made some enquiries

¶35

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47398 WP No. 11138 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

and drew up a mahazar. At that time, the said police personnel also entered the house of the Petitioners.

¶38

The Petitioners who have also filed a complaint in Crime No.58/2025 and NCR.No.50/2025 against the said Chaitra Ruby @ Pinky, the petitioners are aggrieved by the respondents-police having entered the house of the petitioners to conduct a mahazar and the Petitioners are apprehensive that at the instance and behest of Chaitra Ruby @ Pinky, the police officers would ill-treat the Petitioners and harass the Petitioners and it is in that background, the Petitioners are before this Court.

¶39

Learned AGA submits that the investigation would be carried out in accordance with law and there would be no harassment made of the Petitioners as apprehended by the Petitioners.

¶40