Disposed¶45

Smt. Lalithamma v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC4 Jun 2026WP/38695/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Bengaluru, WP No. 38695 of 2025 (GM-POLICE), decided 04.06.2026 by Justice Suraj Govindaraj (NC: 2026:KHC:26296). Petition for mandamus to register FIRs on four complaints and for police protection over agricultural land at Huthri Village, Kunigal Taluk, Tumakuru; suits O.S.Nos.756/2025 and 812/2025 pending with temporary injunctions; court held courts seized of pending injunction suits should decide on police protection; petition disposed of with liberty to approach concerned courts; Articles 226 and 227 Constitution of India; no precedent cited.

What did the court decide?

No mandamus or police protection ordered; liberty reserved to the petitioner to file the necessary application before the concerned courts. ¶45

Smt. Lalithamma Vs State of Karnataka by — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:26296 WP No. 38695 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 38695 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. LALITHAMMA W/O LATE GANGARANGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS, R/AT HUTRI VILLAGE, HUTRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 132.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. RAVIKUMARA B.R, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶14

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶16

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, TUMAKURU - 572 101.

¶17

CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, KUNIGAL CIRCLE, KUNIGAL TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 130.

¶18

STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUNIGAL POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 130.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

¶21

NC: 2026:KHC:26296 WP No. 38695 of 2025

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

(BY SRI. DEVARAJ C.H, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENT NOS.3 AND 4 TO REGISTER FIRS FORTHWITH ON THE BASIS OF THE PETITIONER'S COMPLAINTS DATED 18.10.2025 (VIDE ANNEXURE-D), 28.10.2025 (VIDE ANNEXURE-F), 03.12.2025 (VIDE ANNEXURE-L1), AND 08.12.2025 (VIDE ANNEXUREM1),, AND TO CONDUCT FAIR AND IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Learned Additional Government Advocate accepts notice for the respondents.

¶28

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶29

"a) Issue a writ of Mandamus directing Respondent Nos.3 and 4 to register FIRs forthwith on the basis of the Petitioner's complaints dated 18.10.2025 (Vide AnnexureD), 28.10.2025 (Vide Annexure-F), 03.12.2025 (Vide Annexure-L1), and 08.12.2025 conduct fair and impartial (Vide Annexure-M1), and to investigation in accordance with law;

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:26296 WP No. 38695 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

b) Direct the Respondents to provide immediate and adequate police protection to the Petitioner and her agricultural lands situated at Huthri Village, Kunigal Taluk

¶33

c) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interests of justice and equity."

¶34

Alleging that certain persons are interfering with the possession of the petitioner, the petitioner had filed

¶35

O.S.No.756/2025 and her son had filed O.S.

¶36

No.812/2025, where temporary injunctions had been granted. Alleging that despite the injunction, those persons were seeking to interfere with the possession, the petitioner had submitted various representations to the respondents.

¶37

The grievance of the petitioner is that despite those representations, the Police Authorities have not registered an FIR and investigated into the matter has also provided police protection and it is on that ground that the petitioner is before this Court.

¶38

When two suits are pending wherein injunction have been granted, it would be in the interest of justice that the Court seized of those matters determine

¶39

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:26296 WP No. 38695 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

whether police protection is required to be granted or

¶43

not.

¶44