Dismissed¶80

Smt H N Latha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC19 Jan 2026WP/48987/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; Justice M G Uma; WP No.48987 of 2018 (GM-RES); decided 19.01.2026; mandamus for denova/re-investigation/further investigation of Crime No.312/2015 (Avalahalli Police Station; CC No.8739/2017, Addl. CJM Bengaluru District) by transfer to CIB/COD refused; IPC Sections 427, 447, 448 r/w 34; FIR invoked Sections 380, 427 r/w 149; Articles 226/227 r/w Section 482 CrPC; no prima facie material, no B-register extract; WP.No.47767/2015 order dated 15.12.2015; OS.Nos.9003/2003 and 1185/2011 partition suits; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The point framed for consideration is answered in the 'Negative': the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed. ¶78

Smt H N Latha Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶80

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the writ petition seeking a mandamus to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to conduct denova/re-investigation/further investigation of Crime No.312/2015 by transferring it to CIB or COD.

¶47

Court's answer

The point framed for consideration is answered in the 'Negative': the petitioner is not entitled to any relief, and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.

¶78

Ratio / Principle

No prima facie materials substantiate the petitioner's serious allegations: she produced not even the B-register extract to show the motorcycle was standing in her or her family's name to contend it was stolen, with no explanation why basic documents were not produced though the petition pended seven years.

¶72

Key takeaways

The Co-ordinate Bench order in WP.No.47767/2015 does not support the petitioner's contention that she was in possession, was thrown out and had possession restored; at most it contained a direction to the Police Officer to act on a complaint if filed by her.ratio¶71
Per the charge sheet, the cited eye witnesses (CWs.2 to 5 among 13 witnesses) referred only to plucking of rose flowers from the plant in front of the house and never said the plants were destroyed, undermining the allegation of destruction.ratio¶65

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition (GM-RES) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution r/w Section 482 CrPC by Smt H N Latha, first informant in Crime No.312/2015 of Avalahalli Police Station (pending as CC No.8739/2017 before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru District), seeking a mandamus to Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to conduct denova/re-investigation/further investigation by transfer to CIB or COD. FIR dated 29.12.2015 (after the Co-ordinate Bench disposed WP.No.47767/2015 on 15.12.2015) alleged offences under Sections 380, 427 r/w 149 IPC against her five brothers (Respondent Nos.5 to 9) amid a family-property dispute; charge sheet filed 13.08.2017 under Sections 427, 447, 448 r/w 34 IPC. Held: the petitioner furnished no prima facie material for the alleged trespass/theft, not even the B-register extract for the motorcycle; the WP.No.47767/2015 order did not establish her possession but only directed police to act on any complaint; charge-sheet eye witnesses spoke of plucking roses, not destruction of plants. Point answered in the Negative; petition dismissed. (Justice M G Uma)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:2633 WP No. 48987 of 2018

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO. 48987 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT H N LATHA W/O MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT NO.3, HIRANDAHALLI JANATHA COLONY, NEAR CHINNARAMAIAHNA KUNTE VIRGONAGAR POST, BENGALURU - 560 049

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. VIJAYKUMAR PRAKASH, ADVOCATE FOR

¶12

SRI. M.N. UMESH, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally signed by PRASHANTH N V Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU.

¶16

DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NRUPATUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶17

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001

¶18

STATE BY AVALAHALLI POLICE STATION REP BY SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:2633 WP No. 48987 of 2018

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

BENGALURU - 560 001

¶23

JAGANNATHA H N S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS.

¶24

GOPALA H N S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS.

¶25

NAGARAJ H N S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS.

¶26

MANJUNATH H N S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

¶27

VENKATARAM H N S/O LATE NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS SL.NO. 5 TO 9 ARE R/AT HIRANDAHALLI VILLAGE, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU EAST TALUK, BENGALURU - 560 049

¶28

THE CROPS OF DETECTIVES, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, CARLTON HOUSE, PALACE ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1 TO R4 & R10 SRI. P.B. UMESH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. R.B. DESHPANDE, ADVOCATE FOR R5-R9)

¶31

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO CALL FOR ENTIRE RECORDS FROM THE R-4 IN RESPECT OF THE CRIME NO. 312/2015

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:2633 WP No. 48987 of 2018

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

CULMINATED IN CC NO. 8739/2017 PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL. CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE, BENGALURU DISTRICT AND ETC.,

¶36

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶37

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

¶38

ORAL ORDER

¶39

The petitioner being the first informant in Crime No.312/2014 of Avalahalli Police Station now pending in CC.No.8739/2017 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru District, Bengaluru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 448 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') is seeking issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent Nos.1 and 2 to conduct denova / re-investigation / further investigation, by transferring the same to CIB or COD.

¶40

Heard Sri. Vijaykumar Prakash, learned counsel for Sri. M N. Umesh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt.Soumya R, learned HCGP for respondent Nos.1 to 4 and 10, Sri. P B. Umesh, learned counsel for Sri. R B. Deshpande,

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:2633 WP No. 48987 of 2018

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

learned counsel for respondent Nos.5 to 9. Perused the materials on record.

¶45

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned

¶46

counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶47

"Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition?"

¶48

My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative for the following:

¶49

REASONS

¶50

It is the contention of the petitioner that she is the first informant who lodged the first information with Avalahalli Police against accused Nos.1 to 5 i.e., respondent Nos.5 to 9, alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 380, 427 read with Section 149 of IPC. It is alleged that accused Nos.1 to 5 are her brothers. There was dispute regarding family properties and the petitioner was thrown out from the house which was in her possession. The suits in OS.Nos.9003/2003 and 1185/2011 are pending consideration for partition and separate possession of the properties.

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:2633 WP No. 48987 of 2018

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

It is further contention of learned counsel for the

¶55

petitioner that accused Nos.1 to 5 highhandedly have driven out the petitioner from the house during 2015 and she had filed WP.No.47767/2015 before this Court seeking direction for restoration of possession and the said writ petition came to be allowed by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court. The copy of the order dated 15.12.2015 passed in WP.No.47767/2015 is produced for perusal of the Court, according to which, the officer who was present before the Court has made a candid submission that he has not received any complaint from the petitioner and if any compliant is received he will examine and look into the same. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has recorded the assurance given by the officer and directed him to look into the complaint if filed and send for the accused, if it is warranted. Further, the officer was directed to take further action on the basis of any complaint that may be filed including affording protection to her to return to the village from which she has been banished by the accused. With these observations, the petition came to be disposed off.

¶56

¶57

NC: 2026:KHC:2633 WP No. 48987 of 2018

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

After disposal of the writ petition on 15.12.2015,

¶60

the first information as per Annexure-B dated 29.12.2015 came to be filed by the petitioner with Avalahalli Police, where there is reference to the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP.No.47767/2015 alleging that on 25.12.2015 at 11:30 am she along with her son, mother and an advocate had been to the police station and they were taken near the house by the Police. They were obstructed by her brothers who are the accused herein. There is also reference to the suit in OS.Nos.1185/2011 and 9003/2003 pending before the Civil Court. The petitioner further stated in the first information that, the lock of the house was opened by PSI - M.Srinivas, through the key that was produced by one of the accused and the possession of the property was handed over to the petitioner. When she entered the house, she found cash of Rs.1,50,000/-, various gold and silver ornaments and other pooja articles, documents including the cheque leaves, a bike bearing registration No.KA-53-Q-8285 along with its original documents, a plastic drum, panel board, an electric motor installed in the water sump were all stolen. About 1200 rose plants were destroyed, four coconut trees were cut and

¶61

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:2633 WP No. 48987 of 2018

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

removed. It is stated that PSI M. Srinivas, who has restored her possession had not initiated any action and therefore, she requested the police to register the case against them. The police have registered the complaint in a Crime No.312/2015. After investigation charge sheet came to be filed on 13.08.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 427, 447, 448 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶65

As per the charge sheet, the Investigating Officer has cited as many as 13 witness including CWs.2 to 5 as the eye witnesses. These eye witnesses have referred to plucking of rose flowers from the plant that was grown in front of the house in question. The witnesses never say about destroy of the plaints.

¶66

Now it is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that even though serious allegations are made regarding illegal trespass into the house, stealing of gold and silver articles and various other house hold articles including two wheeler in question, no investigation was undertaken by

¶67

the Investigating Officer. However, no scrap of paper is produced by the petitioner to substantiate any of such

¶68

¶69

NC: 2026:KHC:2633 WP No. 48987 of 2018

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

contention. Firstly, even though, it is the contention of the petitioner that she was in possession of the house in question and she was thrown out by the accused and further the possession was restored in her favour by PSI - M. Srinivas, of Avalahalli Police Station, the order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in WP.No.47767/2015 do not support such contention. However, there is a direction to the Police Officer to act on complaint, if the same is filed by the petitioner.

¶72

The petitioner has not even produced atleast the B- register extract to show that the motor cycle referred to in the complaint was either standing in her name or in the names of her family members, to contend that the same was stolen by the accused. There is absolutely no explanation as to why such

¶73

basic documents are not produced before the Court even though, petition is pending since seven years.

¶74

Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to explain as to why the two suits were filed seeking partition of the family properties. Unfortunately, both the counsels do not know as to what had happen to the suits referred to above. When there are no prima facie materials to

¶75

¶76

NC: 2026:KHC:2633 WP No. 48987 of 2018

¶77

HC-KAR

¶78

substantiate the serious allegations made by the petitioner, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the 'Negative' and proceed to pass the following:

¶79

ORDER

¶80

The petition is dismissed .

¶81

SD/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶82

PNV

¶83

CT:VS

¶84

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 14