- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35586 WP No. 26001 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 26001 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. PRASANNA KUMAR S S/O. LATE SUDARSHANACHARYA.K, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS, RESIDING AT NO.39, 2ND MAIN ROAD, 13TH CROSS, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BANGALORE-560 097. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEENA KUMARA NIRVANI, ADVOCATE (ABSENT) ) AND: 1. SRI. NIYAZ PASHA S/O. LATE SYED ISMAIL, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.23/2, 2ND FLOOR, 2ND CROSS, CHINNANNA LAYOUT, R.T. NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 032. ALSO AT: FLAT NO.05, G.V.R. ENCLAVE, BEHIND LNR COLONY, DUMAIGUDA NAGARAM (DISTRICT), TELANGANA -500083. Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35586 WP No. 26001 of 2025 2. SRI. RAVI CHANDRA K M S/O MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, 3. SRI. BYREGOWDA K.M., S/O. MARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT- MAJOR, 4. SRI. SHIVARAJU, S/O. NARAYANAGOWDA, AGED ABOUT- MAJOR, RESPONDENT NO.2 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT: KARAMANGALA VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT - 563 114. 5. SRI. M.V. JANARDHAN, AGED ABOUT- MAJOR, ADVOCATE KAR NO.2477/02, BANGARPET TOWN, KOLAR DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. 1973 PRAYING TO (A) ISSUE A DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO PASS AN ORDER OF COGNIZANCE IN PCR NO.166/2024 PLEASED TO PASSED BY THE HON'BLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BANGARPET VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35586 WP No. 26001 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the learned Magistrate to take cognizance in PCR No.166/2024. On perusal of the order sheet produced on record, it appears that, following the reference to the police officer for investigation, a ‘B’ report has been submitted and the complainant has filed a protest memo. The learned Magistrate has yet to record the sworn statement of the complainant. In these circumstances, this Court is of the view that the present case is not a fit one for issuing any mandamus. 2. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the non-recording of the sworn statement or the non-taking of cognizance, he is at liberty to approach the learned Magistrate and seek appropriate orders in accordance with law. 3. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 105