Dismissed¶47

Smt Hema W/O Basavaraj Dalwai v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC18 Feb 2026WP/101341/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Dharwad; Justice Lalitha Kanneganti; WP No. 101341 of 2026 (GM-POLICE); decided 18.02.2026; mandamus for registration of FIR refused; police protection refused where civil dispute and pending injunction suit; remedy for police inaction is private complaint before Magistrate; Article 226 petition not maintainable for such relief; land dispute Koppal district; trespass 28.01.2026; casteist remarks; writ petition dismissed, pending I.As. closed.

What did the court decide?

For the alleged inaction of the police on her complaint dated 29.01.2026, the petitioner's remedy is to file a private complaint before the Magistrate. ¶45

Smt Hema W/O Basavaraj Dalwai Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2523 WP No. 101341 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

¶4

DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 101341 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. HEMA W/O BASAVARAJ DALWAI, AGED. 39 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEWIFE/AGRICULTURIST, R/AT. MUTTAGI VILLAGE, BASAVANA BAGEWADI TALUK, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VENKATESH SOMAREDDI AND SACHICHIDANAND B. PATIL, ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by YASHAVANT NARAYANKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY DEPARTMENT OF HOME, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, VIDHANASOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001.

¶15

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, KOPPAL DISTRICT, KOPPAL 583238.

¶16

STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUKUNOOR POLICE STATION, KUKUNOOR 583232.

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2523 WP No. 101341 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SUMANGALA MALLIKARJUNA W/O MR. MALLIKARJUN MULIMANI AGED. MAJOR, RESIDENT OF 2^ND WARD, NEAR DYAVAMMA TEMPLE, TALAKAL VILLAGE, KUKANUR TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT 583238.

¶20

MR. MALLIKARJUN MULIMANI, AGED MAJOR, RESIDENT OF 2^ND WARD, NEAR DYAVAMMA TEMPLE, TALAKAL VILLAGE, KUKANUR TALUK, KOPPAL DISTRICT 583 238

¶21

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, I. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 2^ND RESPONDENT TO REGISTER FIR AS AGAINST RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 5 AS PER COMPLAINT DATED 29/01/2026 COPY AS PER ANNEXURE-E AND OR; II. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE 2^ND RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE POLICE PROTECTION TO THE LIFE AND LIBERTY OF THE PETITIONER AND HER PROPERTY; III. ISSUE ANY OTHER ORDER OR RELIEF DEEMED FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2523 WP No. 101341 of 2026

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

The present writ petition is filed seeking the following

¶28

prayers:

¶29

“I. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to register FIR as against Respondent No.4 and 5 as per complaint dated 29/01/2026 copy as per Annexure-E and or;

¶30

II. Issue a writ of mandamus directing the 2^nd respondent to provide adequate police protection to the life and liberty of the petitioner and her property;

¶31

III. Issue any other order or relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶32

The case of the petitioner is that she is the owner

¶33

of property bearing Sy.No.43/2 of Talabala Seema, Kukunoor Hobli and Taluk, Koppal District, which was purchased by way of registered Sale Deed dated 18.07.2025 from the father of the accused persons. Mutation in respect of the property is also carried out and the RTC in respect of the said property stands in the name of the petitioner. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 claiming to be the legal heirs of the petitioner's vendor started threatening the petitioner to hand over the scheduled land to them and the same was denied by the petitioner. They

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2523 WP No. 101341 of 2026

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

abused the petitioner with casteist remarks and in that regard,a complaint was lodged before the respondent No.3. The petitioner had cultivated the Channa in the scheduled land, which was ready for harvesting in the 2^nd week of January 2026. The respondent Nos.4 and 5 had trespassed into the petitioner’s land on 28.01.2026 at about 04.30 p.m. and tried to remove the harvest. The petitioner gave a complaint to the police and an FIR was registered. Again on the very same day i.e., 28.01.2026, there was a trespass and the police officials had arrived at the spot and stopped respondent Nos.4 and 5 from carrying out the illegal acts in the land belonging to the petitioner. The petitioner on the very next day i.e. on 29.01.2026 made a representation to respondent No.2 regarding the illegal acts of respondent No.4 and 5 and their accomplice. Respondent No.2 had directed respondent No.3 to take legal action in that regard to give protection to the petitioner. It is stated that it is of paramount concern that respondent No.3, who holds a position of authority and is entrusted with a duty to uphold the law and take appropriate measures, has failed to initiate any action.

¶37

5 - NC: 2026:KHC-D:2523 WP No. 101341 of 2026

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

Hence, the petitioner has come before this Court by filing the instant petition.

¶40

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that in fact the suit for injunction is filed and the same is pending consideration. In view of civil dispute, the respondents/police are not interfering and there shall be direction to the respondent/Police to register the FIR against respondent Nos.4 and 5 and to provide police protection to the life and liberty of the petitioner and the property.

¶41

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, perused the material on record. The relief as prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. Admittedly, there is a civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.4 and 5. In that regard, the petitioner had already approached the Civil Court and filed a suit. If the petitioner wants any police protection, she can seek the same from the Court, where the suit is pending. Then coming to seeking a mandamus directing the respondents to register FIR is concerned, as per the complaint dated 29.01.2026, if the

¶42

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC-D:2523 WP No. 101341 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

petitioner is aggrieved by any action/inaction on the part of the respondents/police, the remedy that is available to the petitioner is to file a private complaint before the Magistrate. But, she cannot come before this Court by filing petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i) The writ petition is dismissed.

¶48

ii) Pending I.As. in this petition shall stand closed.

¶49

Sd/JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶50

JTR CT: CNB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35

Smt Hema W/O Basavaraj Dalwai v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Hema W/O Basavaraj Dalwai v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Deputy Director, Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Gangawwa Sadashiv Jeeragal D/O Late Sadashiv Jeergal and W/O Kalappa Jadar Vs Basappa S/O Kadappa Jeeragal

Vittal Vs the Secretary

Mr Anand Joteppa Hosur Vs Smt. Pushpa W/O Joteppa Hosur

Sri Pugazhendi K S/O Kannapan Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Bhagirathi W/O Baburao Balulad Vs Pandugouda S/O Venkanagouda Patil