Dismissed¶¶56

Smt. Roopavathi T v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Jul 2026WP/21923/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Abuse of process; suppression of co-ordinate bench order; police protection endorsement by SHO Puttenahalli; ex parte Crl.Misc.No.197/2025 order dated 22.11.2025; W.P.No.30153/2025; Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007; Section 8 POCSO Act, 2012; Crime No.197/2025; exemplary costs Rs.25,000; Karnataka State Legal Services Authority; recovery as arrears of land revenue; Roopavathi T v. State of Karnataka; WP No. 21923 of 2026 (GM-POLICE); NC: 2026:KHC:37893; CNR KAHC010482482026; decided 22.07.2026.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; petition dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.25,000 payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority on or before 24.08.2026 ¶¶56

Smt. Roopavathi T Vs the State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted; petition dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.25,000 payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority on or before 24.08.2026

¶¶56

Issue for consideration

Whether the endorsement dated 02.07.2026 issued by the SHO, Puttenahalli Police Station (Annexure-C) should be quashed and police protection provided to execute the ex parte order dated 22.11.2025 in Crl.Misc.No.197/2025 +1 more

¶¶36

Court's answer

The writ petition is dismissed, with exemplary cost of Rs.25,000 payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within four weeks, i.e., on or before 24.08.2026

¶¶56

Ratio / Principle

Filing proceedings seeking police help after implementation of the co-ordinate bench order in W.P.No.30153/2025 is a gross abuse of the process of this Court

¶¶54

Key takeaways

Litigants who approach the Court suppressing facts, particularly orders of a co-ordinate bench, must face necessary action as persons who have abused the process of Courtratio¶¶55
If the cost is not paid by 24.08.2026, the Member Secretary, Karnataka State Legal Service Authority may initiate proceedings to recover it from the petitioner as arrears of land revenueratio¶¶62
Perusal of Annexure-C shows the respondents expressed inability to take further action on the petitioner's oral request in view of the coordinate bench order dated 26.02.2026 in W.P.No.30153/2025

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (Suraj Govindaraj, J.) dismissed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 seeking quashing of an endorsement dated 02.07.2026 issued by the SHO, Puttenahalli Police Station (Annexure-C), which declined police protection to implement an ex parte order dated 22.11.2025 in Crl.Misc.No.197/2025, and sought mandamus for ongoing police protection for the petitioner and her children at the shared household. The Court found that the endorsement rested on a coordinate bench order dated 26.02.2026 in W.P.No.30153/2025 (proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007), by which the petitioner's husband had been directed to vacate and hand over the property by 30.05.2026 with police assistance to the senior citizen. Seeking police help thereafter, while suppressing the coordinate bench order, was held to be a gross abuse of the process of the Court. The petition was dismissed with exemplary cost of Rs.25,000 payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority on or before 24.08.2026, failing which it is recoverable from the petitioner as arrears of land revenue.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:37893 WP No. 21923 of 2026

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

CNR: KAHC010482482026

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶6

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JULY, 2026

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 21923 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. ROOPAVATHI T W/O SRI. SHIVA KUMAR B.V., AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT 2ND FLOOR, NO. 94/C5, NEAR GANGADHARESHWARA TEMPLE, JARAGANAHALLI, 6TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. G.M. SHARATHKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶14

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA,

¶16

BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶17

THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶18

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER (SHO) PUTTENAHALLI POLICE STATION, PUTTENAHALLI, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶19

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:37893 WP No. 21923 of 2026

¶22

CNR: KAHC010482482026

¶23

SRI. SHIVAKUMAR B.V., S/O SRI. VEERABHADRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 95/C5, 2ND FLOOR, NEAR GANGADHARESHWARA TEMPLE, JARAGANAHALLI, 6TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶24

SRI. SRIDHAR B.V., S/O SRI. VEERABADHRAIAH, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 95/C5, 2ND FLOOR, NEAR GANGADHARESHWARA TEMPLE, JARAGANAHALLI, 6TH PHASE, J.P. NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶25

SRI. VEERABHADRAIAH S/O LATE EERAIAH AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 94/C5, NEAR CMS SCHOOL, CMS SCHOOL STREET, J.P. NAGAR 6TH PHASE, BENGALURU - 560 078.

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

(BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶28

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 02.07.2026 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT NO.3 (THE STATION HOUSE OFFIER, PUTTENAHALLI POLICE STATION) IN ANNX-C AS ARBITARY, ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT AUTHORITY OF LAW.

¶29

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:37893 WP No. 21923 of 2026

¶32

CNR: KAHC010482482026

¶33

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

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶36

a. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, or direction quashing the impugned endorsement dated 02.07.2026 issued by respondent no.3 (The Station House Officer, Puttenahalli Police Station) in Annexure-C as arbitrary, illegal, and without authority of law.

¶37

b. Issue a writ of mandamus commanding respondent no.3 to strictly implement and execute the operative mandates of the exparte order dated 22.11.2025 passed in Crl.Misc.No.197/2025 by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (Traffic Court-V), Bengaluru in Annexure-B, and provide immediate, ongoing police protection to ensure the physical safety, restoration, and peaceful residence of the petitioner and her children at the shared household at no. 94/C5 (or 95/C5), near Gangadhareshwara Temple, Jaraganahalli, 6^th phase, J.P.Nagar, Bengaluru -560 078.

¶38

c. PASS such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.

¶39

The petitioner had earlier approached this Court vide W.P.No.18382/2026, contending that the respondents

¶40

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:37893 WP No. 21923 of 2026

¶43

CNR: KAHC010482482026

¶44

had not implemented the exparte order dated

¶45

22.11.2025.

¶46

Learned Additional Government Advocate on that occasion made a submission that there was no representation which had been submitted by the petitioner. If a representation were to be submitted, accompanied by necessary orders, the same would be considered.

¶47

The petitioner is once again before this Court contending that despite the order dated 22.06.2026, endorsement at Annexure-C has been issued. A perusal of Annexure-C indicates that it is in view of the order passed by a coordinate bench of this Court dated 26.02.2026 in W.P.No.30153/2025 that the respondents have expressed their inability to take any further action on the oral request made by the petitioner.

¶48

W.P.No.30153/2025 arose out of proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007, wherein the husband of the petitioner had challenged an order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner dated 09.07.2025 in MSC.No.51/2023 and an order dated 30.12.2024 passed by the Assistant Commissioner in Appeal No.MAG(4)(SC)CR:24/2024-25 and this Court, considering the various aspects, including the aspect of the petition having been filed against her husband and the father in Crime No.197/2025, observing

¶49

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

NC: 2026:KHC:37893 WP No. 21923 of 2026

¶52

CNR: KAHC010482482026

¶53

that the petitioner and her husband were harassing the senior citizen, including by filing a false case under Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 had directed the petitioner therein, i.e., the husband of the petitioner, to vacate and hand over the portion of the property, subject matter for the said proceedings by 30.05.2026 and further directed the jurisdictional police to intervene and ensure that the senior citizen has possession of the property.

¶54

In the teeth of that order having been passed against the husband of the petitioner, the question of filing these proceedings seeking for police help after the implementation of the order passed by the co-ordinate bench is, in the considered opinion of this Court, a gross abuse of the process of this Court.

¶55

A litigant who approaches this Court in a genuine manner by disclosing all facts would always be entitled to consideration and grant of such orders as may be permissible. But when the litigants approach this Court by suppressing facts, more particularly the orders passed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court, it is but required for this Court to take necessary action against such litigants who have abused the process of Court.

¶56

In that view of the matter, the above writ petition is dismissed by imposing an exemplary cost of Rs.25,000/payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority

¶57

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

NC: 2026:KHC:37893 WP No. 21923 of 2026

¶60

CNR: KAHC010482482026

¶61

within a period of 4 (four) weeks from today, i.e., on or before 24.08.2026.

¶62

If the said payments are not made by 24.08.2026, the Member Secretary, Karnataka State Legal Service Authority would be entitled to initiate such proceedings as may be necessary to recover the said costs as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner.

¶63

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶64

GJM

¶65

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 15

Smt. Roopavathi T v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Roopavathi T 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

Mr. Johar Abbas Vs the State of Karnataka, by

Mr.Mukkaram Jan Vs Union of India

Sri Chinna C N Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R Manikanta Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Yangamma Vs State of Karnataka

Lvt Containers Vs the State of Karnataka