Allowed¶37

Smt Sunitha M v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Jul 2026WP/17697/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FIR registration mandamus; Lalitha Kumari (2014)2 SCC 1 applied; cognizable offence; complaint Annexure-C dated 29.04.2026; preliminary enquiry endorsement 30.04.2026 Annexure-D; Sections 318, 336, 351, 352, 3(5) BNS; Section 75 Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015; Section 37 Aadhaar Act 2016; Sections 66C, 66D Information Technology Act 2000; Station House Officer Varthur Police Station; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution; writ mandamus; WP No. 17697 of 2026 GM-Police; Justice Suraj Govindaraj; 15-day compliance timeline.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; mandamus issued to respondent No. 2 to consider the complaint at Annexure-C, register an FIR and proceed with the investigation in terms of the Lalitha Kumari decision, within 15 days of receipt of a certified copy of the order. ¶37

Smt Sunitha M Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶37

Issue for consideration

Whether respondent No. 2 (Station House Officer, Varthur Police Station) is bound to register an FIR on the petitioner's complaint at Annexure-C, which alleges cognizable offences punishable under Sections 318, 336, 351, 352, 3(5) BNS, Section 75 JJ Act 2015, Section 37 Aadhaar Act 2016 and Sections 66C/66D IT Act 2000. +1 more

¶34

Court's answer

A perusal of the complaint at Annexure-C shows the allegations are as regards cognizable offences; consequently, in terms of the Supreme Court's decision in Lalitha Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014)2 SCC 1, the respondents were required to register the complaint and investigate the matter.

¶31

Ratio / Principle

Mandamus is issued directing respondent No. 2 to consider the petitioner's complaint, register an FIR and proceed with the investigation in terms of the Apex Court decision referred to above, within 15 days from receipt of a certified copy of the order.

¶38

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Suraj Govindaraj, J.), order dated 02.07.2026 in Writ Petition No. 17697 of 2026 (GM-Police): Smt. Sunitha M.'s complaint dated 29.04.2026 (Annexure-C) to the Station House Officer, Varthur Police Station (respondent No. 2) alleged cognizable offences punishable under Sections 318, 336, 351, 352 and 3(5) BNS, Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, Section 37 of the Aadhaar Act, 2016 and Sections 66C and 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000; no FIR was registered and respondent No. 2 had issued a preliminary-enquiry endorsement dated 30.04.2026 (Annexure-D), which the petitioner sought to quash. Relying on Lalitha Kumari v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2014)2 SCC 1, the Court held that registration of the FIR was mandatory and issued mandamus to respondent No. 2 to register the FIR and investigate within 15 days of receipt of a certified copy of the order. Writ petition allowed.

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:32852 WP No. 17697 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 17697 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. SUNITHA M. WIFE OF VENKATA SANTHOSH MURALI, AGED 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT A-204, 2^ND FLOOR, CMRS ROYAL ORCHIDS APARTMENT, BALAGERE ROAD, VARTHUR, BANGALORE - 560 087.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. A. T. MALLYA.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001, BY SECRETARY.

¶14

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, VARTHUR POLICE STATION, BANGALORE - 560 087, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI. C.H.DEVARAJ., GA)

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:32852 WP No. 17697 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE 2^ND RESPONDENT TO REGISTER THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AGAINST THE PERSONS ACCUSED, ON THE BASIS OF THE ACCUSATIONS DETAILED IN THE COMPLAINT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 318 SECTIONS 336, SECTION 351 SECTION 352 SECTION 3(5) BNS READ WITH SECTION 75 OF THE JUVENILE JUSTICE (CARE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN) ACT, 2015 AND SECTION 37 OF AADHAAR (TARGETED DELIVERY OF FINANCIAL AND OTHER SUBSIDIES, BENEFITS AND SERVICES) ACT, 2016. COUPLED WITH SECTION 66C SECTION 66D OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT 2000 AS PER THE ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE COMPLAINT AT ANNEXURE -C AND PROCEED WITH THE CASE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondents No.1 and 2.

¶23

1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶24

"i) To issue writ of Mandamus or any appropriate writ, directing the 2^nd Respondent to register the First Information Report a gainst the persons accused, on the basis of the accusations detailed in the complaint for the offences punishable under Section 318 Sections 336, Section 351 Section 352 Section 3(5) BNS read with section 75 of the Juvenile

¶25

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:32852 WP No. 17697 of 2026

¶26

HC-KAR

¶27

Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 and Section 37 of Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies, Benefits and Services) At, 2016. Coupled with Section 66C Section 66D of Information Technology Act 2000 as per the allegations made in the complaint at Annexure-C and proceed with the case in accordance with law.

¶28

ii) To quash the endorsement issued by the 2^nd respondent for preliminary enquiry and further investigation, as per Annexure-D, dated 30.04.2026.

¶29

iii) To pass such other orders as this Hon'ble Court deems fit, under the Circumstances of the case."

¶30

The g rievance of the petitioner is that the complaint which has been submitted by the petitioner on 29.04.2026 at Annexure-C, no action has been taken by the respondents. In that background, the aforesaid reliefs have been sought for.

¶31

A perusal of the complaint at Annexure-C indicates that allegations made are as regards cognizable offences and in terms of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others reported in (2014)2 SCC 1 , that

¶32

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:32852 WP No. 17697 of 2026

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

the respondents were required to register the complaint and investigate the matter.

¶35

In that view of the matter, I pass the following:

¶36

ORDER

¶37

i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶38

ii) Mandamus is issued directing respondent No.2 to consider the complaint submitted by the petitioner, register a FIR and proceed with the investigation in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶39

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶40

MCR

¶41

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8

Smt Sunitha M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Sunitha M 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

Bangalore Baptist Church Trust Vs M/S Satchmo Holdings Ltd.

Piyush Kisanlal Jani Vs Office of Official Liquidator

The Cosmopolitan Club (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Bejgam Ravindra Prasad Vs Passport Authority

Smt. Veena, Vs the Assistant Commissioner

The Manager Vs Thejas N