Allowed¶42

Sri. Vishal.K v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Apr 2026WP/13571/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of police notice in essentially civil dispute; police interference in contractual/sale-consideration dispute held without jurisdiction; exclusive province of civil courts; absence of cognizable offence; Articles 226/227 writ; GM-Police; Karnataka High Court; Annexure-J notice CPI/MLK/GNL/L/PETS/27/2025; registered sale deed 12.09.2024; direction to police not to entertain civil complaints; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the impugned notice dated 22.04.2026 (CPI/MLK/GNL/L/PETS/27/2025, Annexure-J) stands quashed; respondent No.2 cautioned and directed not to entertain or act upon essentially civil complaints; no costs. ¶42

Sri. Vishal.K Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶42

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No.2, the Inspector of Police, transgressed the bounds of jurisdiction by issuing the impugned notice over what is essentially a civil dispute relating to alleged non-payment of balance sale consideration, thereby warranting judicial interference.

¶35

Court's answer

Respondent No.2 clearly transgressed the bounds of jurisdiction by venturing into a domain which is purely civil in character.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Disputes relating to enforcement of contractual obligations, including alleged non-payment of sale consideration, fall within the exclusive province of civil courts and cannot be made the subject matter of police interference where no cognizable offence exists.

¶35

Key takeaways

Unwarranted interference by the police in civil disputes cannot be countenanced and deserves to be deprecated in the strongest terms.obiter¶38
Respondent No.2 was cautioned and directed not to entertain or act upon complaints which are essentially civil in nature, and to refrain from interfering in such disputes under the guise of exercising police powers.ratio¶43

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-Police) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — three petitioners purchased the subject property under a registered Sale Deed dated 12.09.2024 from the complainant (Annexure-A) and obtained non-agricultural conversion from the Deputy Commissioner. Despite the absolute conveyance, the complainant allegedly colluded with the jurisdictional police, resulting in a notice dated 22.04.2026 (CPI/MLK/GNL/L/PETS/27/2025) by the Inspector of Police, Molkalmoor Circle, premised on alleged non-payment of balance sale consideration. Held: respondent No.2 transgressed jurisdiction by entering a purely civil domain; disputes over enforcement of contractual obligations, including non-payment of sale consideration, fall exclusively within civil courts' province and cannot attract police interference absent a cognizable offence; the notice suffered patent lack of jurisdiction and manifest arbitrariness. Notice quashed; respondent No.2 cautioned against entertaining essentially civil complaints. Single Judge: Sachin Shankar Magadum, J. Decision dated 28.04.2026.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:23804 WP No. 13571 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 13571 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. VISHAL.K ASON OF KODANDA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT # 242 VISVESWARAYA MAIN ROAD 2^ND A CROSS, KAVERI ROAD SITHA CIRCLE, GIRINAGAR BSK 3^RD STAGE BENGALURU - 560 085

¶9

Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI ABHILASH C SON OF CHANDRASHERKAR D AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS RESIDING AT 106, 1^ST MAIN 3^RD CROSS, ITTAMADU LAYOUT BSK 3^RD STAGE BENGALURU - 560 085.

¶11

SRI AKILESH RAKSHAK N SON OF NANDAGOPAL AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS RESIDING AT # 1045 4^TH FLOOR, WING-1 SOBHA VALLEY VIEW HOSKERAHALLI BSK 3^RD STAGE BENGALURU - 560 085

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

(BY SRI: BHASKAR GOWDA N M.,ADVOCATE)

¶14

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:23804 WP No. 13571 of 2026

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶18

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE MOLKALMOOR CIRCLE CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 535

¶19

SRI NAVANEET G SON OF B GANESH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT NO.206, 2^ND FLOOR LASKHMI PARADISE APARTMENT 2^ND CROSS, SECTOR A AMRUTHNAGAR, HEBBAL BENGALURU - 560 092.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI: VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA)

¶22

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 22.04.2026 IN CPI/MLK/GNL/L/PETS/27/2025 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2/INSPECTOR OF POLICE, MOLAKALMOOR CIRCLE, MOLKALMOOR AS PER ANNEXURE-J AND ETC.,

¶23

THIS WP, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:23804 WP No. 13571 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

The petitioners in the captioned petition are aggrieved by the police notice issued by respondent No.2 as evidenced at Annexure J. In a matter essentially being civil in nature and therefore, the impugned police notice is now sought to be challenged in the captioned petition.

¶29

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. Perused the material on record, more particularly, the impugned notice dated 22.04.2026.

¶30

The material placed on record would indicate that the petitioners have acquired right, title and interest over the subject property under a registered Sale Deed dated 12.09.2024 executed by the complainant, as evidenced from Annexure-A. It is further borne out from the records that, subsequent to the purchase, the petitioners have secured conversion of the land for non-agricultural use at the hands of the competent authority, namely, the Deputy Commissioner, and have proceeded to develop the property. Despite an absolute conveyance in favour of the petitioners, it is alleged

¶31

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:23804 WP No. 13571 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

that the complainant, in collusion with the jurisdictional police, has set the criminal law in motion with an oblique motive, resulting in issuance of the impugned notice and consequent harassment to the petitioners.

¶34

On a pointed query by this Court as to the competence of respondent No.2 to issue the impugned notice in the backdrop of a dispute arising out of alleged non-payment of balance sale consideration, the learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, fairly submits that the grievance projected by the complainant is predominantly civil in nature and that the impugned action cannot be justified in law.

¶35

Having given anxious consideration to the material on record, this Court is of the considered view that respondent No.2 has clearly transgressed the bounds of jurisdiction by venturing into a domain which is purely civil in character. It is trite that disputes relating to enforcement of contractual obligations, including alleged non-payment of sale consideration, fall within the exclusive province of civil courts and cannot be the subject matter of police interference in the absence of any cognizable offence. The impugned notice,

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:23804 WP No. 13571 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

therefore, suffers from patent lack of jurisdiction and is manifestly arbitrary, warranting interference at the hands of this Court. Such unwarranted interference by the police in civil disputes cannot be countenanced and deserves to be deprecated in the strongest terms.

¶39

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) The writ petition is hereby allowed.

¶42

ii) The impugned notice dated 22.04.2026 issued by respondent No.2, produced at Annexure-J, stands quashed.

¶43

iii) Respondent No.2 is hereby cautioned and directed not to entertain or act upon complaints which are essentially civil in nature, and to refrain from interfering in such disputes under the guise of exercising police powers.

¶44

No costs.

¶45

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶46

BGN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21

Sri. Vishal.K v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Vishal.K 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 R Somasundara Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri. Shivappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Syed Hidayat Ulla Vs Criminal Investigation Department

Sogalapalya Milk Producers Co. Operative Society Ltd. Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Pradeep Kumar H S Vs the Inspector General of Registration and Commissioner of Stamps

Sandeep T S Vs the State of Karnataka