Dismissed¶42

Dhananjaya R v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC15 Apr 2026WPHC/36/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

habeas corpus; WPHC No. 36 of 2026; High Court of Karnataka Bengaluru; missing person FIR 28.03.2026; Nelamangala Town Police Station; Bengaluru Rural district; Vinutha D. / Vinuth D.; adult daughter (age 19) left voluntarily with Preetham D.; POCSO Act 2012; BNSS 2023; Articles 226 and 227; no interference while investigation continuing; alternative remedy before jurisdictional Magistrate; dismissed; Jayant Banerji; Rajesh Rai K; petitioner Dhananjaya R.; HCGP Thejesh P.

What did the court decide?

Given the FIR filed on 28.03.2026 and the nature of the allegations therein, no interference under Article 226 is called for, particularly as the investigation is continuing. ¶35

Dhananjaya R Vs the State of Karnataka — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:20506-DB WPHC No. 36 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

PRESENT

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION HABEAS CORPUS NO. 36 OF 2026

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

DHANANJAYA.R, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, S/O. LATE RAJGOPAL. K, R/AT. NO.703, 2^ND CROSS, ADHARSHA NAGARA, ARASHINAKUNTTE, NELAMANGALA TOWN, BENGALURU-562 123.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by KAVYA G Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI.TUMBIGI PRABHUGOUDA BASAVANTARAYAGOUDA., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETARY, HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, NO.5, MILLERS ROAD, OPPOSITE VIKRAM HOSPITAL, VASANTH NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 051.

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:20506-DB WPHC No. 36 of 2026

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, NELAMANGALA TOWN POLICE, NELAMANGALA, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 123.

¶20

PREETHAM.D, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, S/O. LATE DEVARAJA, R/O. CHEERANAHALLI, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 403.

¶21

SMT. NAGARATHNAMMA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, W/O. LATE DEVARAJA, R/O. CHEERANAHALLI, KOTHATHI HOBLI, MANDYA TALUK AND DISTRICT-571 403.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.THEJESH.P., HCGP FOR R1 TO R3)

¶24

THIS WPHC IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA WHEREIN PETITIONER PRAYS THAT THE HON’BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO (I) ISSUE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO TRACE SECURE AND PRODUCE THE DAUGHTER OF THE PETITIONER MS.VINUTH.D BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT AND (2) TO ISSUE DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 5 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM SEXUAL OFFENCES ACT AND OTHER PENAL LAWS.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and

¶27

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

¶28

¶29

NC: 2026:KHC:20506-DB WPHC No. 36 of 2026

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶32

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI)

¶33

This writ petition is filed seeking to trace, secure and produce the corpus of the daughter of the petitioner by name Ms. Vinutha D. Further relief is to take appropriate action against the Respondents No.4 & 5 under the provisions of the POCSO Act, 2012¹ and other penal laws.

¶34

2. From the record it appears that the FIR dated 28.03.2026 was lodged at Nelamangala Town Police Station in Bengaluru District under the provisions of BNSS, 2023² for missing person. The complainant is admittedly the petitioner, who has stated that the age of his daughter is 19 years. They suspect the boy namely Preetham, who is stated to be the Respondent No.4 herein is the person, who is responsible for the missing of his daughter.

¶35

3. The aforesaid FIR being filed on 28.03.2026, given the nature of the allegations made in the FIR, no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is called for particularly given the fact that the investigation is continuing.

¶36

1 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012,

¶37

2 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20506-DB WPHC No. 36 of 2026

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

In case the petitioner has any objections as to the manner of investigation, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is for the petitioner to move the jurisdictional Magistrate under the relevant provisions of the BNSS, 2023.

¶41

4. The daughter of the petitioner namely Ms. Vinutha D., has been produced by the police and she has been queried

¶42

by the Court as to whether she left voluntarily with the aforesaid Preetham or she was forcibly taken away by him against her Will, she responded that she has gone with him voluntarily. Such being the fact, even otherwise, no interference would be called for in this petition. This petition is therefore dismissed.

¶43

Sd/(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE

¶44

Sd/(RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE

¶45

KGR

¶46

List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1

Dhananjaya R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dhananjaya R v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mallika K P Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahendra Mrityunjay Hugar Vs Karnataka Examination Authority

Kumaran Kannan Vs Mahalakshmi K

Smt Muniyamma Vs the Commissioner

Sri.Mudit Mehrotra Vs Smt.Deepali Mehrotra

Sri Praveen Kumar Vs Mrs Vidya