- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36924 WP No. 27960 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 27960 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: PRAKASH Y S/O YERAPPA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT NO.379/B, DWARAKAVASA ROAD, 1ST STAGE, BHARATHNAGAR MAGADI MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560091. &PETITIONER (BY SRI. R SHASHIDHARA.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE INSPECTRO GENERAL OF POLICE CENTRAL DIVISION, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA -562159 Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36924 WP No. 27960 of 2025 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE RAMANAGARA DISTRICT RAMANAGARA -562 159. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE TAVAREKARE POLICE STATION TAVAREKERE-562130. &RESPONDENTS (BY SMT.K.P. YASHODHA., AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE R-4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 8.09.2025 VIDE ANNX-F TO THIS WP AND REGISTER FIR AS PER THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE PETITIONER. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36924 WP No. 27960 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner asserts ownership of 35 guntas in Sy.No.32 of Manganahalli Village, Yeshwanthpura Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk [the subject property] and the benefit of an ex parte injunction in OS No.1214/2021 on the file of the IV Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru Rural District against 29 persons. The petitioner now contends that apart from these 29 persons, certain others who are mentioned in the information filed with the Jurisdictional Police on 04.09.2025 [Annexure-D] have trespassed into the subject property and that despite repeated information and representation the Jurisdictional Police are not taking any action. Mr.R.Sashidhara, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that this Court must intervene and direct the jurisdictional police to register FIR because the petitioner has made out a cognizable offence, and the learned counsel proposes to rely - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36924 WP No. 27960 of 2025 upon the Apex Court's decision to assert that the police are under a duty to register FIR when there is when a cognizable offence is made out. Ms.K.P.Yashodha, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who is called upon to accept notice for the respondents, is heard in the light of this grievance and canvass. The petitioner claims advantage of an interim order, and this Court must find that if the interim order has to inure to the petitioner's advantage, he must seek such orders against those who are responsible. The petitioner must be at liberty in this regard. As such, there cannot be a reason for this Court's interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and as regards the petitioner's case that the respondents have not registered FIR notwithstanding cognizable offence being made out and that the police authorities are obliged to law to register FIR and investigate, this Court must firstly - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36924 WP No. 27960 of 2025 observe that the preposition is beyond dispute and secondly, that if there is any dereliction, the petitioner must avail remedy as is otherwise permissible. This Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could be invoked when there is no alternative remedy or the remedy is not efficacious. This Court therefore is not persuaded to grant any intervention in the present proceedings. The petition stands disposed of subject to all just exceptions in law. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA ct:sr