Dismissed¶48

Mr N Praveen @ Praveen Kumar v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2026WP/39217/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP No. 39217 of 2025 (GM-POLICE), High Court of Karnataka, decided 15.04.2026, Sachin Shankar Magadum J. Mandamus to register FIR refused; civil dispute over title/possession of immovable property; temporary injunction rejected under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC (O.S. No.4363/2025, XL Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, CCH-41); prima facie finding of no lawful possession; police not bound to entertain complaints lacking a cognizable offence; invoking criminal law to overreach or circumvent civil-court findings impermissible; petition dismissed, no costs.

What did the court decide?

None; writ petition dismissed, with no order as to costs. ¶48

Mr N Praveen @ Praveen Kumar Vs the State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; writ petition dismissed, with no order as to costs.

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, having instituted a bare suit for injunction in O.S. No.4363/2025 and having suffered rejection of his temporary-injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC, can simultaneously invoke the jurisdiction of the police by lodging a complaint in respect of the very same subject matter already seized of by a competent civil Court. +1 more

¶32

Court's answer

Once a competent Civil Court records a prima facie finding that the petitioner has failed to establish lawful possession over the suit schedule property, this Court cannot permit the petitioner to indirectly secure the very same relief by setting the criminal law in motion.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

When a dispute is essentially civil in nature, particularly relating to title and possession over immovable property, the parties are required to work out their remedies before the competent Civil Court; the police machinery cannot be permitted to be used as a tool to settle civil disputes or to overreach the findings recorded by a Civil Court.

¶37

Key takeaways

The jurisdictional police are not bound to entertain every complaint unless the same discloses commission of a cognizable offence.ratio¶39
Having regard to the nature of the dispute and the findings recorded by the Civil Court, no cognizable offence is made out warranting interference by the police.ratio¶43
The prayer seeking a direction to the jurisdictional police to entertain the complaint or to initiate action cannot be acceded to; permitting such a course would amount to allowing the petitioner to circumvent the judicial findings of the Civil Court, which is impermissible in law.ratio

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Sachin Shankar Magadum J.), Oral Order dated 15.04.2026 in WP No. 39217 of 2025 (GM-POLICE): dismissed a petition seeking a writ of mandamus directing the police to register an FIR, on the petitioner's complaint dated 01.12.2025, against Ramakrishna G., Rajanikanth Reddy and companions, over property already the subject of the petitioner's bare injunction suit O.S. No.4363/2025 (CCH-41). The Civil Court had rejected his temporary-injunction application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, recording a prima facie finding that he failed to establish lawful possession. Holding that a civil dispute over title and possession must be worked out before the competent Civil Court, that the police machinery cannot be used to settle civil disputes or to overreach/circumvent civil-court findings, and that police are not bound to entertain complaints not disclosing a cognizable offence - none being made out here - the Court dismissed the writ petition, with no order as to costs.

¶1

NC: 2026:KHC:20611 WP No. 39217 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 39217 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR N. PRAVEEN @ PRAVEEN KUMAR SON OF LATE NARAYANAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESIDING AT, NO.E-52, BEHIND TCH COLLEGE, NAGAWARA, ARABIC COLLEGE POST BANGALORE NORTH-560045.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI BABU MANUEL ABEL, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, OPPOSITE VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶16

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE INFANTRY ROAD BENGALURU-560001.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:20611 WP No. 39217 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, NAGAWARA POLICE STATION BENGALURU-560001.

¶21

THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, GOVINDAPURA NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-9560094.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA)

¶24

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONERS DATED 01/12/2025 BY ANNEXURE-A REGISTERING THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AGAINST MR RAMAMKRISHNA G., RAJANIKANTH REDDY AND HIS COMPANIONS AND ETC.,

¶25

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

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

This petition is filed seeking direction against the respondents to consider the complaint registered by the petitioner on 01.12.2025 and register an FIR against one Ramakrishna G., Rajanikanth Reddy and his companions.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶29

learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent–State. Perused the material on record.

¶30

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20611 WP No. 39217 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

The short point that arises for consideration is, as to whether the petitioner, having instituted a bare suit for injunction in O.S. No.4363/2025 on the file of the XL Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-41), and having suffered an adverse order on the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, can simultaneously invoke the jurisdiction of the police by lodging a complaint in respect of the very same subject matter, which is already seized of by a competent civil Court.

¶33

On a careful examination of the pleadings and submissions, it is not in dispute that the petitioner has approached the Civil Court seeking the relief of bare injunction in respect of the subject property. The records further disclose that the application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner has been considered and rejected by the Court below. Though the petitioner has not placed the detailed order passed by the Civil Court, the learned Additional Government Advocate has produced the same for the perusal of this Court.

¶34

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20611 WP No. 39217 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

A perusal of the order passed by the Civil Court would indicate that, while rejecting the application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC, the Court has recorded a prima facie finding that the petitioner/plaintiff has failed to establish lawful possession over the suit schedule property. Once such a finding is recorded by a competent Civil Court, this Court cannot permit the petitioner to indirectly secure the very same relief by setting the criminal law in motion.

¶37

It is a settled principle that when a dispute is essentially civil in nature, particularly relating to title and possession over immovable property, the parties are required to work out their remedies before the competent Civil Court. The police machinery cannot be permitted to be used as a tool to settle civil disputes or to overreach the findings recorded by

¶38

a Civil Court.

¶39

This Court is also of the considered view that the jurisdictional police are not bound to entertain every complaint unless the same discloses commission of a cognizable offence. In the present case, having regard to the nature of the dispute

¶40

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20611 WP No. 39217 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

and the findings recorded by the Civil Court, no cognizable

¶43

offence is made out warranting interference by the police.

¶44

In that view of the matter, the prayer seeking a direction to the jurisdictional police to entertain the complaint or to initiate action cannot be acceded to. Permitting such a course would amount to allowing the petitioner to circumvent the judicial findings of the Civil Court, which is impermissible in law.

¶45