- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7142 WP No. 10251 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI MULIMANI WRIT PETITION NO. 10251 OF 2021 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SRI. ABDUL SALAM S/O LATE ABDUL JALEEL, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.137, 2ND CROSS, GUNDAPPA STREET, NEELASANDRA, BENGALURU - 560 047. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAHAMATHULLA SHARIFF., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY VIVEKNAGAR POLICE STATION, VIVEKNAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 047. REP. BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SMT. KAVITHA W/O SHRI DAYAL KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT 6TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN, SESHAIAH NAIDU GARDEN, N.S.PALYA, BANNERGHATTAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 075. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR., AGA FOR R1) Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7142 WP No. 10251 of 2021 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Mahantesh Shettar., AGA for respondent No.1 has appeared in person. 2. The captioned Writ Petition is filed seeking a Writ of Prohibition and directed the first respondent not to interfere in the civil rights of the parties in respect of the property bearing No.4, in Ground Floor of the property bearing No.31, Bazaar Street, Austin Town, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru - 560 047, measuring East to West 7 feet and North to South 11.5 + 13.5/2 feet and to pass any other equitable order/ direction/ writ which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances of the case. 3. Heard the arguments and perused the Writ papers with utmost care. 4. AGA on instructions submits that the first respondent has not interfered with the civil rights of the - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7142 WP No. 10251 of 2021 petitioner and no point in time he has been called upon to the Police Station. AGA therefore, submits that an appropriate order may be passed. The oral submission made by AGA is placed on record. 5. Suffice it to note that the petitioner alleges that the first respondent has interfered with his civil rights and has failed to protect the same. It appears that the petitioner had some grievance against the second respondent. A perusal of the Writ papers reflects that the petitioner has made baseless allegations against the first respondent. Moreover, the prayer sought by the petitioner cannot be accorded in the Writ Petition. The Writ Petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be rejected. 6. Resultantly, the Writ Petition is rejected. Sd/- (JYOTI MULIMANI) JUDGE MRP List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1