Disposed¶52

Smt Deverama @ Parvathama v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC1 Aug 2025WP/23035/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, Writ Petition No. 23035 of 2025 (GM-POLICE), decided 01.08.2025 by Justice B M Shyam Prasad; neutral citation NC: 2025:KHC:29812. Keywords: police protection; enforcement of temporary injunction; O.S.No.294/2024; representations dated 15.04.2025; Annexures R, S and T; Circular dated 14.11.2018; Station House Officer; Asst./Dy. Director of Prosecutions; Legal Advisor; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; Karisiddamma v. Sanna Kenchamma ILR 2010 Kar 1197; Mandya District police; Kikeri Police Station; entirely civil dispute; liberty to approach civil Court for directions to Police; petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Just liberties to the petitioner to file an application with the civil Court for directions to the Police. ¶52

Smt Deverama @ Parvathama Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Just liberties to the petitioner to file an application with the civil Court for directions to the Police.

¶52

Issue for consideration

Whether the respondents (Mandya District Police Authorities) should be directed to act on the petitioner's representations dated 15.04.2025 (Annexures R, S and T) seeking implementation of the civil Court's order of temporary injunction in O.S.No.294/2024, in terms of the Circular dated 14.11.2018.

¶23

Court's answer

The respondents (Police Authorities) must implement the civil Court's order when there is a specific direction by the civil Court to ensure that its orders are implemented, and the civil Court will have to issue such directions on an application filed by the petitioner considering all the circumstances.

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The terms of the Circular dated 14.11.2018 will be effective when there is difficulty in implementing the civil Court's considered directions.

¶50

Key takeaways

The Court declined to direct the Police Authorities to intervene in what would be an entirely civil dispute.ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-POLICE) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India by the beneficiary of an interim order of temporary injunction in O.S.No.294/2024, seeking a direction to the Mandya District Police Authorities to consider her representations dated 15.04.2025 (Annexures R, S and T) in accordance with the Circular dated 14.11.2018, which requires every Station House Officer to implement court orders scrupulously and, where implementation is not possible, to obtain the opinion of the Assistant/Dy. Director of Prosecutions or Legal Advisor and report to the concerned court. Referring to Karisiddamma v. Sanna Kenchamma, ILR 2010 Kar 1197, the High Court held that the Police Authorities must implement a civil Court's order when the civil Court itself issues a specific direction on an application filed considering all circumstances, and that the Circular's terms operate only where there is difficulty in implementing such considered directions. Declining to direct police intervention in what would be an entirely civil dispute, the Court disposed of the petition with just liberties to the petitioner to file an application before the civil Court for directions to the Police. (B M Shyam Prasad, J.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:29812 WP No. 23035 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 23035 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT DEVERAMA @ PARVATHAMA W/O SRI S K SUBBEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT SOLLEPURA POST, KIKKERI HOBLI, KRISHNARAJAPETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT 571426

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SUPRITHA K.H.., ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001

¶15

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE MANDYA DISTRICT, MANDYA 571401

¶16

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:29812 WP No. 23035 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KIKERI POLICE STATION, NAGAMANGALA, MANDYA 571432

¶20

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE KIKERI POLICE STATION, K R PETE TALUK MANDYA 571423

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. K.P.YASHODHA, AGA)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER DTD 15.04.2025 VIDE ANNX-R,S AND T RESPECTIVELY AS PER CIRCULAR DTD 14.11.2018.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR

¶25

PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:29812 WP No. 23035 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

The petitioner, a 60 year old lady who has the benefit of interim order of temporary injunction in O.S.No.294/2024, seeks direction to the respondents [the Police Authorities] from the Mandya District to act on the different representations [ as per Annexures

¶32

- R, S and T ].

¶33

Mr. Suprith K.H, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in terms of the Circular dated 14.11.2018, every Station House Officer must implement the Court orders scrupulously, and if the Court orders cannot be implemented for any reason, the concerned Station House Officer must obtain opinion of the Assistant Director of Prosecutions and the opinion so received must be forwarded to the Court. The learned counsel relies upon the following in the afore Circular:

¶34

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:29812 WP No. 23035 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

10	When a person produces orders issued by the court.	No Station House Officer should insist on specific court direction to give police protection. If the court orders can be implemented, they should be implemented scrupulously. If the court orders cannot be implemented on the ground due to any reason, opinion
		of the Asst. Director of
		Prosecutions/Dy. Director of Prosecutions/Legal Advisor
		attached to the office of the
		Commissioner of Police, should be obtained and according to the opinion, action should be taken. If the order cannot be implemented on the ground due to any reason, a report should be sent to the concerned court for consideration and further orders.

¶38

Mrs. K. P. Yadhodha, the learned Additional

¶39

Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, is heard for final disposal of the petition.

¶40

The civil Court's order is an order restraining the private respondents from interfering with the petitioner's possession of certain land, and the petitioner contends that she is not able to harvest standing crops because of the continued interference.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:29812 WP No. 23035 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

The petitioner has remedy in the pending civil proceedings, and this Court must refer to the decision of this Court in Karisiddamma v. Sanna Kenchamma , reported in ILR 2010 Kar 1197

¶45

“ In the light of granting the temporary injunction order after hearing both the sides, if a party in whose favour the temporary injunction order is made, complains to the Court that the other side is obstructing the use of the road and that the police are not coming to her rescue, the Trial Court is well within its limits to pass an order directing the police to give the necessary said in the enforcement of the temporary injunction order. The Court can grant police aid exercising its inherent powers. Otherwise the interests of the litigants cannot be protected against a party .”

¶46

This Court is of the view that the respondents must implement that order when there is a specific direction by the civil Court to ensure that its orders

¶47

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:29812 WP No. 23035 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

are to be implemented and that the civil Court will have to issue such directions on an application filed by the petitioner considering all the circumstances. The terms of the Circular dated 14.11.2018 will be effective when there is difficulty in implementing such considered directions. As such, this Court is not inclined to direct the Police Authorities to intervene in what would be an entirely civil dispute. Hence, the following:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

The petition stands disposed of with

¶53

just liberties to the petitioner to file an application with the civil Court for

¶54

directions to the Police.

¶55

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶56

Smt Deverama @ Parvathama v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Deverama @ Parvathama 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Nirupama. K. C. Vs the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd.

Nain Taj Vs State of Karnataka

Mr M B Basavaraj Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Auto Rickshaw Union (R) Hejamadi Vs the State of Karnataka

R Devashritha (Since Deceased on 07.08.2018) by His Legal Representatives D Sumithra Vs N/S Chandra Exhibitors

Nanja Raju Vs Sri. Manche Gowda