Sri. Prajwal .S Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 19.02.2026 WHEREIN THE PETITIONER HAS SOUGHT FOR ADEQUATE POLICE PROTECTION VIDE ANNEXURE - A ETC.,

¶26

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

¶27

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13980 WP No. 6190 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

The captioned writ petition is filed seeking a direction to respondent No.2 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioners dated 19.02.2026, produced at Annexure–A, and to extend adequate police protection to petitioners No.1 and 2 so as to enable them to solemnize their marriage by way of a registered marriage. The grievance of the petitioners is that though the said representation has been forwarded to respondent No.2 through Registered Post Acknowledgement Due (RPAD), no action has been taken by the jurisdictional police authorities and the representation has not been considered till date.

¶31

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents. Perused the material placed on record.

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:13980 WP No. 6190 of 2026

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

The pleadings in the writ petition reveal that petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 have been in a relationship for the past five years. It is their specific case that their relationship was disclosed to their respective family members; however, both families have strongly opposed the proposed marriage on the ground that the petitioners belong to different castes. It is further averred that the parents and relatives of the petitioners are unwilling to accept their relationship and are attempting to prevent them from entering into matrimony. Apprehending interference and possible threats from their family members, the petitioners have approached the jurisdictional police authorities by submitting a representation seeking police protection to enable them to solemnize their marriage. As the representation has not elicited any response from the police authorities, the petitioners are constrained to approach this Court seeking appropriate directions.

¶36

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:13980 WP No. 6190 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

The learned Additional Government Advocate, on instructions, submits that though the petitioners claim to have sent the representation through RPAD, if the petitioners submit a physical copy of the representation before respondent No.2, the said authority would examine the grievance of the petitioners in accordance with law and take appropriate steps to ensure that the petitioners are not subjected to any threat or interference while exercising their right to solemnize their marriage.

¶39

Recording the submission made by the learned

¶40

Additional Government Advocate, this Court proceeds to pass the following order:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i. The writ petition is disposed of;

¶43

ii. The petitioners are reserved liberty to approach respondent No.2 – the jurisdictional police officer, by submitting a detailed

¶44

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:13980 WP No. 6190 of 2026

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

representation seeking police protection to enable them to solemnize their marriage in accordance with law;

¶47

iii. If such a representation is submitted, respondent No.2 shall consider the same and take appropriate steps to ensure that the petitioners are not subjected to any threat, intimidation or interference from any quarter and shall extend necessary police protection, if the situation so warrants, in accordance with law.

¶48

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶49

HDK

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14

Sri. Prajwal .S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Prajwal .S 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Shivakumar G Vs Karnataka State Co. Operative Handloom Weavers Federation Ltd.

Ms.X Vs State of Karnataka

Kaveriyappa N T Vs the State of Karnataka by

Kaif Ullah Khan Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Surya Roadlines Vs State of Karnataka

The Regional Manager Legal Vs Ganesh K