- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15099 WP No. 107405 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 107405 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SRI. MAHADEV SANNAIK, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT KANAGALA VILLAGE, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI, R/O: KANAGALA, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI – 591 225. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. KISHOR S. SUTAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BELAGAVI DISTRICT, SUBHASH NAGAR, BELAGAVI – 590 016. 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GOKAK SUB DIVISION, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI – 590 001. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SANKESHWAR POLICE STATION, TQ. SANKESHWAR, BELAGAVI – 590 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR RESPONDENT/STATE) Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15099 WP No. 107405 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 4 TO CONSIDER MY COMPLAINT DATED. 21-01-2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-C, AND REGISTER A F.I.R AGAINST THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND OTHER MEMBERS INVOLVED AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: A. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 4 to consider my complaint dated 21-01-2025 vide Annexure-C, and register a F.I.R against the Panchayat Development Officer and other members involved. B. To issue any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity. 2. The petitioner, a member of the Grama Panchayath, seeks to register a complaint against the Panchayat Development Officer and others alleging several cognizable offences. The complaint is not registered. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to register a complaint. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15099 WP No. 107405 of 2025 3. Heard Learned counsel Sri. Kishor S. Sutar appearing for the petitoner and learned AGA Sri. T. Hanumareddy appearing for the respondents 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the accused is a Panchayat Development Officer, the complaint is not being registered. 5. The learned AGA would submit that if a direction is issued at the hands of this Court, appropriate action would be taken thereon. 6. On a perusal of the complaint, it would clearly indicate that there are cognizable offences indicated in the said complaint. Therefore, the complaint ought to have been registered in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.1 Wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: “120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: 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. 1 (2014) 2 SCC 1 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15099 WP No. 107405 of 2025 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. 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 [Ed.: This correction is based on para 120.7 as corrected vide order in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., (2023) 9 SCC 695.] . 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15099 WP No. 107405 of 2025 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.” 7. The said view of the Constitution Bench is reiterated by the Apex Court subsequently in a judgment rendered in the case of Pradeep Nirankarnath Sharma v. State of Gujarat and Ors2, wherein the Apex Court holds as follows: “11. We have carefully considered the submissions of the appellant and perused the records. The legal position regarding the registration of FIRs in cases of cognizable offences is well settled. This Court, in Lalita Kumari (supra), has categorically held that the registration of an FIR is mandatory under Section 154 CrPC if the information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. The relevant paragraphs from the judgment of this Court in Lalita Kumari (supra) are reproduced below: "114. It is true that a delicate balance has to be maintained between the interest of the society and protecting the liberty of an individual. As already discussed above, there are already sufficient safeguards provided in the Code which duly protect the liberty of an individual in case of registration of false FIR. At the same time, Section 154 was drafted keeping in mind the interest of the victim and the society. Therefore, we are of the cogent view that mandatory registration of FIRs under Section 154 of the Code will not be in contravention of 2 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 315 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15099 WP No. 107405 of 2025 Article 21 of the Constitution as purported by various counsel. Exceptions 115. Although, we, in unequivocal terms, hold that Section 154 of the Code postulates the mandatory registration of FIRs on receipt of all cognizable offences, yet, there may be instances where preliminary inquiry may be required owing to the change in genesis and novelty of crimes with the passage of time. One such instance is in the case of allegations relating to medical negligence on the part of doctors. It will be unfair and inequitable to prosecute a medical professional only on the basis of the allegations in the complaint. Conclusion/Directions 120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold: 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." [Emphasis supplied] 12. The scope of a preliminary inquiry, as clarified in the said judgment, is limited to situations where the information received does not prima facie disclose a cognizable offence but requires verification. However, in cases where the information clearly discloses a cognizable - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15099 WP No. 107405 of 2025 offence, the police have no discretion to conduct a preliminary inquiry before registering an FIR. The decision in Lalita Kumari (supra) does not create an absolute rule that a preliminary inquiry must be conducted in every case before the registration of an FIR. Rather, it reaffirms the settled principle that the police authorities are obligated to register an FIR when the information received prima facie discloses a cognizable offence. 13. In the present case, the allegations against the appellant pertain to the abuse of official position and corrupt practices while holding public office. Such allegations fall squarely within the category of cognizable offences, and there exists no legal requirement for a preliminary inquiry before the registration of an FIR in such cases. The appellant's contention that successive FIRs have been registered against him with an ulterior motive is a matter that can be examined during the course of investigation and trial. The appellant has adequate remedies under the law, including the right to seek quashing of frivolous FIRs under Section 482 CrPC, the right to apply for bail, and the right to challenge any illegal actions of the investigating authorities before the appropriate forum. 14. Further, this Court cannot issue a blanket direction restraining the registration of FIRs against the appellant or mandating a preliminary inquiry in all future cases involving him. Such a direction would not only be contrary to the statutory framework of the CrPC but would also amount to judicial overreach. As rightly observed by the High Court, courts cannot rewrite statutory provisions or introduce additional procedural safeguards that are not contemplated by law. 15. In view of the foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the present appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. However, it is clarified that this order shall not preclude the appellant from availing any other remedies available to him under the law in respect of the pending FIRs or future proceedings.” In that light, I deem it appropriate to dispose the petition with a direction to the respondents to register the crime strictly - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:15099 WP No. 107405 of 2025 in consonance with the judgment of the Apex Court quoted supra without brooking any further delay. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE kmv CT-ASC