Sri. P v Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri. P v Murthy Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None of the sought reliefs (lodging of FIR, further investigation, quashing of the endorsement, costs) was granted; liberty was reserved to the petitioner to approach the Superintendent of Police or Deputy Commissioner of Police and, failing action there, the Jurisdictional Magistrate by way of a private complaint.

Issue for consideration

Whether respondents 2 to 5 were required to lodge an FIR and take up further investigation in pursuance of the petitioner's complaints dated 14.01.2026 (Annexure-H) and 29.01.2026 (Annexure-J) under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Act, 2023. +1 more

Court's answer

Since the offences alleged in the complaint at Annexure-H (IPC Sections 191 to 193, 463, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 34) are all non-cognizable offences, there was no requirement for the respondents to have registered the FIR (relying on Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1).

Ratio / Principle

If the petitioner is aggrieved by the non-registration of the FIR, he may approach the next higher authority, namely the Superintendent of Police or the Deputy Commissioner of Police.

Key takeaways

If no action is taken by the superior authority, the petitioner may approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate by filing a private complaint, in terms of the decision in Priyanka Srivastava and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2015) 6 SCC 287.ratio¶4
With the above liberty reserved to the petitioner, the writ petition stands disposed of; no direction to lodge an FIR and no quashing of the endorsement was ordered.ratio¶5

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition No. 20303 of 2026 (GM-Police), High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Suraj Govindaraj, J.), decided 15 July 2026. Petitioner P V Murthy sought a mandamus directing respondents 2 to 5 (Bengaluru West Division/Chickpet/Cottonpet police officers) to lodge an FIR and investigate his complaints dated 14.01.2026 (Annexure-H) and 29.01.2026 (Annexure-J) under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) Act, 2023, alleging respondents 6 to 9 had falsely indicated that he had expired and created documents including a family tree, and further sought quashing of the police endorsement dated 13.02.2026 (No. Kaa. Pe. P. S / Nera Arji10/2026, Annexure-K). The Court held that the complaint at Annexure-H was filed under Sections 191 to 193, 463, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 34 of the IPC, all non-cognizable offences, so there was no requirement to register an FIR (relying on Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 1). The petitioner was pointed to the next higher authority (Superintendent of Police or Deputy Commissioner of Police) and, absent action, to the Jurisdictional Magistrate by private complaint (relying on Priyanka Srivastava v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2015) 6 SCC 287). Reserving such liberty, the petition was disposed of.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:36110 WP No. 20303 of 2026

HC-KAR

CNR: KAHC010450502026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 20303 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

SRI. P V MURTHY S/O LATE VENKATARAMANAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.P-11(13), SDM LANE SULTANPET CROSS, MANAVARTHIPET CHICKPET, BENGALURU-560053.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. C SHANKAR REDDY., ADVOCATE)

AND:

��

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY/COMMISSIONER HOME DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA VIKASA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-560001.

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU WEST DIVISION MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560023.

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE CHICKPET SUB DIVISION CHICKPET-560053.

THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE COTTONPET POLICE STATION COTTONPET MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560053.

2 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:36110 WP No. 20303 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010450502026

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE COTTONPET POLICE STATION COTTONPET MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560053.

POORNIMA V.M

AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS D/O SRI. P.V MURTHY AND SMT. B.S SAROJA

BHOOMIKA SOWMYA SINDHU V.M AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS D/O SRI. P.V MURTHY AND SMT. B.S SAROJA

SRI. NAVEEN V.M AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS S/O SRI. P.V MURTHY AND SMT. B.S SAROJA R6 TO R8 ARE R/AT NO.440 10^TH CROSS, 80 FEET ROAD GIRINAGARA 2^ND PHASE BENGALURU-560085.

SRI. SURESH BABU S/O SRI. NAGARAJ H AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/ AT NO.288, PUTTAPPA LAYOUT NEW THIPPASANDRA BENGALURU-560071.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. DEVRAJ C H, GA FOR R1 TO R5: NOTICE TO R6 TO R9 IS D/W V/O DATED: 15.07.2026)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS, ORDER OR WRIT OF LIKE NATURE DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS 2 TO 5 TO LODGE FIR AND TAKE UP FURTHER INVESTIGATION IN PURSUANCE TO THE COMPLAINT DATED 14.01.2026 LODGED BY THE PETITIONER, THE

3 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:36110 WP No. 20303 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010450502026

ANNEXURE-H TO THIS WRIT PETITION AND TAKE THE SAME TO ITS LOGICAL END UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS) ACT, 2023 AND ETC.

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

ORAL ORDER

Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Notice to respondent Nos.6 to 9 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed.

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

“[a] Issue a writ of mandamus, order or writ of like nature directing the respondents 2 to 5 to lodge FIR and take up further investigation in pursuance to the complaint dated 14.01.2026 lodged by the petitioner, the ANNEXURE 'H' to this writ petition and take the same to its logical end under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita [BNS] Act, 2023.

[b] Quash the endorsement dated 13.02.2026 issued by the 4th respondent and signed by the 5th respondent, vide No. Kaa. Pe. P. S / Nera Arji10/2026, the ANNEXURE 'K' to the writ petition addressed to the petitioner and direct the respondents 2 to 5 to take up further investigation in terms of the complaint dated 14.01.2026, produced and marked as ANNEXURE 'H' to the writ petition.

[c] Issue a writ of mandamus, order or writ of like nature directing the respondent no.4 to lodge FIR and take up further investigation in pursuance to the

4 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:36110 WP No. 20303 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010450502026

complaint dated 29.01.2026 lodged by the petitioner, the ANNEXURE 'J' to this writ petition and take the same to its logical end under the provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita [BNS] Act, 2023.

[d] Grant costs and such other reliefs as this honourable court deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case.”

Alleging that the respondent Nos.6 to 9 had falsely indicated that the petitioner had expired and created certain documents including a family tree. The petitioner had submitted complaints on 14.01.2026 at Annexure-H and 29.01.2026 at Annexure-K. Being aggrieved by the respondents not registering an FIR and proceeding with investigation, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs.

A perusal of the complaint at Annexure-H would indicate that the complaint has been filed under Sections 191 to 193, 463, 465, 467, 468, 471, 420 and 34 of the IPC. All of these offences are non-cognizable offences. As such, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of LALITA KUMARI vs. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR

5 -

HC-KAR

NC: 2026:KHC:36110 WP No. 20303 of 2026

CNR: KAHC010450502026

PRADESH AND OTHERS¹ , there was no requirement for the respondents to have registered the FIR. If the petitioner is aggrieved by such non-registration, the petitioner could always approach the next higher authority, namely the Superintendent of Police or the Deputy Commissioner of Police, and if no action is taken by such superior Authority, it would be available for the petitioner to approach the Jurisdictional Magistrate by filing a private complaint in terms of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PRIYANKA SRIVASTAVA AND ANOTHER vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS² .

Reserving such liberty, the petition stands disposed of .

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

HA

LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 22

1 (2014) 2 SCC 1

2 (2015) 6 SCC 287