- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16902 WP No. 108970 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 108970 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: JAFAR SADIQ S/O. MUNEER SHAIKH, AGE ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION: LABOUTER, R/AT NO NEAR NIMRA MASJID OPP SHAHEEN BAKERY BASAV COLONY SHAHUNAGAR, BELAGAVI, BELAGAVI – 590 010. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. D. NADAF, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, DEPT OF HOME AFFAIRS, VIDHAN SOUDHA BENGALORE – 04. 2. USMAN AVATI, THE POLICE INSPECTOR, APMC POLICE, STATION, BELAGAVI – 590 010. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BELAGAVI, BEHIND LINGRAJ COLLEGE, COLLEGE ROAD BELAGAVI – 590 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER, DIRECTING THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO INITIATE DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY/ACTION AGAINST THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR DELIBERATELY DERAILING FROM DISCHARGE OF OFFICIAL DUTY AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16902 WP No. 108970 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following relief: “Wherefore, it is most humbly prayed before this Hon’ble court be please to issue writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, directing the 3rd respondent to initiate departmental enquiry/ action against the 2nd respondent for deliberately derailing from discharge of official duty.” 2. Heard learned counsel Sri. A. D. Nadaf appearing for the petitioner and learned AGA Sri. T. Hanumareddy appearing for the respondents. 3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: The colleague of the petitioner is assaulted by his brother- in-law on 27.10.2025 at around 08.00 p.m., in the garage where he is said to be working. The petitioner who is a witness to the said incident, accompanies his colleague to the hospital and later to the APMC Police Station. The person named in the complaint threatens the petitioner and slaps him for standing as a witness against the said incident. The attack on the petitioner, which takes place outside the premises of the police station, is recorded in the CCTV camera outside the police station. The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16902 WP No. 108970 of 2025 petitioner thereafter approaches the police to register a complaint. The said complaint is not registered, and thus the petitioner is constrained to register a complaint by submitting it through the post. The complaint, even then, is not registered, and therefore, the petitioner approaches the higher authorities for registration of the complaint, which leads to no avail. It is the inaction of the respondents, which is called in question by the petitioner in the subject petition. 4. Learned AGA submits that the complaint of the petitioner was received by the police station, and the petitioner was accordingly called for an inquiry before registration of the FIR. Learned AGA further submits that the FIR would be registered if the person named in the complaint is guilty of a cognizable offence. 5. It is un-understandable as to why the crime is not registered when the incident takes place on 27.10.2025, and the petitioner files the complaint on the same date. Even after the complaint being received by way of post, which the petitioner was constrained to do, the police have not registered the crime. The crime is not registered despite the incident having taken - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16902 WP No. 108970 of 2025 place more than 1 month ago, all for the folly of the police. Later, when the matter would be taken up before the concerned Courts, what would be projected by the accused is delay in registering the crime, and accordingly, that the proceedings should be interfered with at the hands of the concerned Court in the appropriate jurisdiction. It could be a jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. or otherwise, where grant for interim order of stay is made out by the State due to its dereliction of duty in not registering the crime. Therefore, it becomes necessary to direct the 3rd respondent to enquire into why the 2nd respondent-Police Inspector, APMC Police Station, Belagavi city, has not registered the crime yet. The petitioner has demonstrated by production of documents that the complaint filed by him is not registered for reasons best known to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, the reasons must be known by conducting departmental enquiry against the 2nd respondent who has not registered the crime. Non-registration of the crime runs completely counter to what the Apex Court has time and again reiterated, right from its judgment in the case of LALITA - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16902 WP No. 108970 of 2025 KUMARI v. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH1, wherein it is held as follows: “120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. 120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. 120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. 120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. 120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. 1 (2014) 2 SCC 1 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16902 WP No. 108970 of 2025 120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months' delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. 120.7 While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time- bound and in any case it should not exceed fifteen days generally and in exceptional cases, by giving adequate reasons, six weeks' time is provided. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. 120.8. Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.” (Emphasis supplied) - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16902 WP No. 108970 of 2025 6. In the light of the afore-quoted judgment of the Apex Court and the mushrooming of petitions before this Court on the score that the crime is not registered, the State shall take action against the concerned police officer. 7. In the light of the crime not being registered despite the incident occurring more than 1 month ago, I deem it appropriate to direct the 3rd respondent to conduct an inquiry in accordance with the directions laid down in the case of LALITA KUMARI supra. The petition thus stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52