Allowed

K. M. Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Apr 2026WP/39554/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227, the High Court held that registering a criminal case does not absolve police of their duty to enforce civil court decrees. The Court directed the jurisdictional police to provide protection and take cognizance of orders granting perpetual injunction and police protection.

What did the court decide?

Police directed to forthwith take cognizance of the perpetual injunction decree, interim rejection order, and order granting police protection, and extend continuous protection.

K. M. Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka — Execution and Attachment | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:19512 WP No. 39554 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

WRIT PETITION NO. 39554 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

K. M. VENKATESH S/O. LATE MUDLAIAH AGED 48 YEARS R/AT. KALYANAPURA VILLAGE HEBBUR HOBLI TUMKURU TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

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

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA HOME DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA

¶16

DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶17

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE TUMKUR DISTRICT TUMKUR-572101

¶18

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER HEBBURU POLICE STATION HEBBUR, TUMKUR TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572021

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. K.P YOGANNA, AGA)

¶21

¶22

NC: 2026:KHC:19512 WP No. 39554 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING 3RD RESPONDENT TO GIVE POLICE PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONER FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 1.3.2017 IN O.S.NO.762/2015 PASSED BY THE I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, TUMKUR AS PER ANNEXURE-A. II. ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 TO FOLLOW THE CIRCULAR DATED 14.11.2018 ISSUED BY THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE OF KARNATAKA STATE AS PER CLAUSE NO.10 OF THE CIRCULAR WHICH IS MARKED AS ANNEXURE-F. III. ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶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

Captioned petition is filed seeking police protection by implementing the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2017 passed in OS.No.762/2015 by following the Circular dated 14.11.2018 issued by Director General and Inspector General as per Clause No. 10 of the Circular, evidenced at Annexure-F.

¶28

Heard the petitioner's counsel and learned AGA.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:19512 WP No. 39554 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

Learned counsel for the petitioner would

¶33

vehemently contend that the petitioner’s father had instituted a suit in O.S. No.762/2015, which culminated in a decree of perpetual injunction in his favour, thereby

¶34

conclusively protecting the possession of the suit schedule property. It is further submitted that the very same defendants, having suffered the said decree, subsequently instituted O.S. No.489/2023, wherein their prayer for interim injunction has been expressly rejected by the competent Civil Court, thereby reaffirming the petitioner’s lawful possession. Despite the aforesaid binding judicial determinations, the said defendants are stated to have continued their unlawful interference with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. Learned counsel would draw the attention of this Court to the proceedings in Execution Petition No.117/2018, wherein

¶35

the Executing Court, taking note of continued obstruction, has been pleased to grant police protection by order dated

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:19512 WP No. 39554 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

18.08.2022, thereby mandating the jurisdictional police to

¶40

ensure enforcement of the decree.

¶41

The principal grievance of the petitioner is that notwithstanding the existence of a decree for perpetual injunction, coupled with a specific order of the Executing Court directing police protection, there is total inaction and apathy on the part of the respondent–police authorities in implementing the said orders. It is contended that the failure of the jurisdictional police to act in aid of the decree not only defeats the very purpose of the decree but also undermines the authority of the Court, leaving the petitioner remediless despite having succeeded before competent judicial fora.

¶42

Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, would submit that a criminal case has already been registered against the said defendants and that a charge sheet has also been filed.

¶43

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19512 WP No. 39554 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

While taking note of the said submission, this Court is of

¶46

the considered view that mere registration of a criminal case and filing of charge sheet does not absolve the jurisdictional police of their independent statutory and constitutional obligation to ensure that lawful court orders are respected and enforced. Where there exists a decree for perpetual injunction and a consequential order of the Executing Court granting police protection, any continued interference constitutes a recurring and continuing cause of action.

¶47

In such circumstances, the police are dutybound, particularly in light of the applicable Government Circulars (more specifically Clause No.10), to take immediate cognizance of any threat or obstruction to possession, extend necessary protection, and take preventive as well as coercive measures, including issuing stern warnings and initiating appropriate proceedings, so as to uphold the rule of law and ensure compliance with judicial orders. Failure to do so would render the decree

¶48

¶49

NC: 2026:KHC:19512 WP No. 39554 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

illusory and erode public confidence in the justice delivery

¶52

system. Therefore, this Court is satisfied that the present

¶53

case warrants issuance of appropriate directions to secure effective implementation of the orders already passed by the competent courts.

¶54

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶55

following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

¶58

(ii) The respondent No.3 – jurisdictional police authority is hereby directed to forthwith take cognizance of:

¶59

(a) the judgment and decree for perpetual injunction passed in O.S. No.762/2015;

¶60

(b) the order rejecting interim relief in O.S. No.489/2023; and

¶61

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:19512 WP No. 39554 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

¶64

No.117/2018, whereby police protection has been granted;

¶65

(iii) The respondent–police shall effectively

¶66

implement and enforce the aforesaid orders by ensuring that the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule property is not interfered with, and shall extend adequate and continuous police protection, as and when required;

¶67

(iv) In the event of any further interference by the defendants or any persons claiming under them, the jurisdictional police shall promptly intervene, take preventive and penal action in accordance with law, and ensure strict compliance with the decree and execution order;

¶68

(v) It is made clear that mere registration of criminal

¶69

proceedings shall not be construed as sufficient compliance, and the respondent authorities shall

¶70

¶71

NC: 2026:KHC:19512 WP No. 39554 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

remain continuously obligated to prevent recurring

¶74

interference and uphold the binding judicial orders in their letter and spirit.

¶75

SD/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶76

ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50

K. M. Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K. M. Venkatesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Hanumanthappa Lingadalli Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. C T Muddukumar Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Manjula Vs the Director General of Police

M/S Associated Human Resource Service Pvt. Ltd., Vs Bengaluru Solid Waste Management Limited

Shaik Ameen Vs Gangadhar

M/S Berggreuen Properties Pvt. Ltd., Vs State of Karnataka