- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8476 WP No. 104326 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR WRIT PETITION NO. 104326 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: N. THIPPANNA SUPPLIERS, DJ SOUNDS & FLOWER DECORATION, LIGHTINGS, NEAR GOVT. VETERNERY HOSPITAL, BELLARY ROAD, SIRUGUPPA-583121, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR: B. EARANNA. …PETITIONER (BY SMT. SUNITHA P. KALASOOR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BELLARY DISTRICT, BELLARY-583101. 2. THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, SIRUGUPPA POLICE STATION, DIST: BELLARY-583121. 3. N. VIDYANANDA, 15TH WARD, JAYANAGAR LAYOUT, 1ST CROSS, SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BELLARY-583121. 4. N. SHIVANANDA, 13TH WARD, KUMARASWAMY LAYOUT, NEAR JNANA BHARATHI DEGREE COLLEGE, SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BELLARI-583121. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.V. MAGADUM, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO REGISTER THE FIR BY 1ST RESPONDENT ON THE COMPLAINT SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT DATED 19.06.2025 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE K AND TAKE FURTHER STEPS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMI M KANKUPPI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.07.14 12:38:11 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8476 WP No. 104326 of 2025 THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) 1. Petitioner is the resident of Shiruguppa Town, he has been in supplying of Shamiyana and flower decoration and lightings and sound systems equipments on rental basis from several years. Petitioner has made huge investment in her business, which was earlier conducted by her husband. Due to ill-health of her husband, she is continuing the said business. 2. Respondents No.3 and 4 being far relatives of the petitioner were unemployed and did not have any avocation are interfering with the day to day affairs of running her business. Hence, due to the interference by respondents No.3 and 4, petitioner had filed a complaint to the Shiruguppa Police, but the same was not received by respondent No.2/Police and hence the petitioner sent the complaint by registered post. 3. It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent/Police are not acting in accordance with law and not registering the complaint by way of FIR on the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8476 WP No. 104326 of 2025 basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents No.3 and 4 are trying to threaten the labours and so also they are creating untoward incidents by coming to the shop intoxicated. Therefore, there is a threat for the life of petitioner and her business. The inaction of respondents No.1 and 2, Police authorities in not registering the complaint has caused injustice and hardship to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition for mandamus to 1st respondent to register the FIR on complaint filed by the petitioner. 4. Per Contra, the learned AGA contends that on the basis of the petition filed and complaint so lodged by the petitioner, it appears that the matter is of civil in nature as the petitioner herself has admitted that respondents No.3 and 4 are her far of relatives, who have secured some GST numbers and are coming and interfering with the business of the petitioner. It is contended by learned AGA that interference by the Police in such matters would be detrimental to the Police that they are interfering in the civil matters, which is not the domain of the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8476 WP No. 104326 of 2025 Police authority. Nevertheless, he contends that if there is any cognizable offence made out on the basis of complaint the respondent would take action in accordance with law. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondent/State. 6. It is apparent from the records that the petitioner is a lady, who is conducting business activities, which was earlier run by her husband, due to ill-health of her husband, she is continuing the business activities. Even according to the averments made in the petition, respondents No.3 and 4 are shown to be far relatives, who have secured the some GST numbers and cause title of the petition depicts that the petitioner is a proprietary firm represented by Proprietor- B.Earanna. The complaint is lodged by the wife of the proprietor-B-Earanna. 7. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments that a civil suit has been filed against respondent Nos.3 and 4 which is pending adjudication. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8476 WP No. 104326 of 2025 8. In matters like this, this Court would not be in a position to decide the rights of the parties as to, whether the petitioner is the rightful owner or respondent Nos.3 and 4 have any right or authority to go into the established premises of the petitioner and whether they have committed any civil wrong of illegal acts, which would amount to cognizable offence. 9. Be that as it may. Without adverting to any of these merits, once the complainant, acting on behalf of the petitioner, has lodged the complaint before the police station, it becomes the duty of the police authority to act in accordance with law by taking into consideration whether there is any cognizable offence made out and if any such offence is made out, to register a complaint and initiate suitable action in accordance with law. The respondent-Authorities will have to follow the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others1 to appreciate the complaint so registered by the complainant, who is none other than the wife of the proprietor-B. Earanna. 1 (2014) 2 SCC 1 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8476 WP No. 104326 of 2025 10. Accordingly, I pass the following ORDER i. This petition is disposed of. ii. The respondent-authorities shall consider the complaint so lodged by the complainant, who is none other than the wife of the petitioner and act in accordance with law. iii. No opinion is expressed by this Court. Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CKK, Kmv from para 7 till end CT-MCK