- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16826 WP No. 102566 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. 102566 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: ABUBAKARSIDDIK S/O. NOORAHMED VEERAPUR, AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, 4TH CROSS, NEW GANDHI NAGAR, BELAGAVI – 01. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A. D. NADAF, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001. 2. THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR, BELAGAVI MALMARUTI POLICE STATION, BELAGAVI 590 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE LAW AND ORDER, BEHIND LINGRAJ COLLEGE, BELAGAVI – 590 001. 4. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE NORTHERN RANGE, SUBHASH NAGAR, BELAGAVI – 01. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT DIRECTING THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO INITIATE THE DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY/ACTION AGAINST THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR DELIBERATELY DERAILING FROM DISCHARGE OF OFFICIAL DUTY. B. A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT DIRECTING THE 2ND AND 3RD Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16826 WP No. 102566 of 2025 RESPONDENT TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION AGAINST THE ACCUSED PERSONS AS APPENDED IN ANNEXURE-A AND B AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA appearing for the respondent-State. 2. The petitioner and his family members were attacked by certain persons who are named in the complaint at around 10.00 p.m. on 06.02.2025. The petitioner and his family members took treatment in the hospital and then approached the jurisdictional police to register a complaint. The said complaint is not registered. Therefore the petitioner and his family members were constrained to register a complaint by submitting it through the post. The complaint even then was not registered. Therefore the petitioner had to approach the higher authorities for registration of the complaint. Even then it was not registered. Therefore the petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: A. A Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the 4th respondent to initiate the departmental enquiry/action against the 2nd respondent for deliberately derailing from discharge of official duty. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16826 WP No. 102566 of 2025 B. A writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the 2nd and 3rd respondent to take appropriate action against the accused persons as appended in Annexure-A and B. C. Grant such other relief as this Hon’ble High Court deems fit under the circumstances in the interest of justice. 3. The learned AGA submits that the crime is registered on 30.06.2025. It is understandable as to when the incident takes place on 06.02.2025, the petitioner seek to complain on 06.02.2025 and that the complaint is not received and even after the complaint being received by way of post, which the petitioner and his family members were constrained to do, the police have not registered the crime. The crime is registered 4 months after the incident, 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. Therefore, 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 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 respondent No.4 to - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16826 WP No. 102566 of 2025 enquire into why the Station House Officer of Belagavi Malmaruti Police Station, Belagavi has not registered the crime immediately on 06.02.2025 when the complaint projected cognisable offences against the accused therein. The petitioner and his family members have been made to roam pillar to post to get the crime registered which comes about only after 4 months after the incident. The petitioner has demonstrated by production of documents that the complaint sought to be registered by him is not registered for reasons best known to the Station House Officer. Therefore, the reasons must be known by conducting departmental enquiry against the said Station House Officer who has not registered the crime. In identical circumstance, the Co- ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.100746/2022 disposed off on 08.03.2022, wherein it has held as follows: “1. The petitioner is before this Court, seeking for the following reliefs: (i) Issue a writ of mandamus and direct the respondent No.2. to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 01.02.2022 vide Annexure-E to the writ petition and also direct the 3rd respondent to register FIR in pursuance of a complaint submitted by the petitioner on 20.01.2022 vide Annexure-D to the writ petition as it is illegal and unconstitutional. (ii) Issue a writ, mandamus, direction or declaration or pass such other orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit under the facts and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16826 WP No. 102566 of 2025 circumstances of the case, to meet the ends of justice. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the petitioner on 20.01.2022, at about 10.00 a.m. on account of his sister and her husband having entered the property of the petitioner with 30 gunda elements and removed the standing Areka Nut crop by force and threatened. 3. The petitioner immediately called the respondent No.4 over telephone however no action was taken. Despite the first information having been provided, no complaint was registered. Hence, the petitioner called the police helpline No.112 and informed about the non-cooperation of the 4th respondent and for registration of FIR, despite which no action has been taken. Subsequently, the petitioner approached respondent No.3 the Deputy Superintendent of Police, requesting him to initiate action. 4. The Deputy Superintendent of Police had directed the 4th respondent Inspector of Police to take action despite which the 4th respondent has not registered a complaint, but called upon the petitioner and his sister to come to the Police Station along with the documents relating to the property for the purpose of enquiry. 5. It is on the above basis, the petitioner is before this Court contending that, the respondents have not registered an FIR in pursuance of first information provided by the petitioner and therefore, his rights have been violated so also the procedure prescribed by the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others, reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1. 6. Sri. Narayan V. Yaji, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that, since the petitioner had informed the 4th respondent and or the Police helpline about the commission of a cognizable offence, an FIR ought to have been registered which till date has not been registered. On this ground, he submits that, the relief as sought is required to be granted. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16826 WP No. 102566 of 2025 7. Sri. Shivaprabhu Hiremath, learned AGA would however submit that, there is no call received by the 4th respondent, a call was made only to the police helpline No.112, the operator had informed the person attending the emergent call in the subpolice station, who in fact had visited the spot and having found that there are some disturbance had directed the persons present there not to cause any nuisance and had asked them to attend to Police Station along with the documents of the disputed property. 8. Though the petitioner’s sister attended to the enquiry along with the possession receipt and Judgment copy, the petitioner did not attend to the enquiry and as such his complaint was not registered. 9. He further submits that, the petitioner directly approached the Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police the respondent No.3, complaining about the trespass to the land when respondent No.3 forwarded the same to the respondent No.4 seeking for a report in the matter. 10. After receipt of the information from respondent No.3, despite respondent No.4 making various phone calls to the petitioner, the petitioner did not come forward or assist in the enquiry, therefore, no action has been taken, the writ petition has filed is misconceived and no relief can be granted in the present matter. 11. These being the submissions by both the counsels, the point that would be required to be determined by this Court is “Whether on information being received, either on the police helpline or directly to a police station, the concerned Officer can carryout a enquiry, requiring the complainant to attend an enquiry before registering of a complaint?” 12. This aspect is no longer a res integra. The Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari’s case (supra) has extensively dealt with the matter and has concluded on the applicability and the procedure to be followed as also issued various directions. The same are reproduced hereunder for easy reference: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16826 WP No. 102566 of 2025 “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. 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16826 WP No. 102566 of 2025 (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 timebound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. 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.” 13. A perusal of the above indicates that, whenever any information is received disclosing a commission of a cognizable offence, there is no preliminary enquiry which is permissible and FIR is required to be registered by the person receiving information. It is only when the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence, a preliminary enquiry could be conducted to ascertain if there is a cognizable offence committed or not. If the enquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence an FIR must be registered. 14. These being the categorical findings of the Apex Court, applying the same to the present case, there was a call alleged to have been made by the petitioner to the respondent No.4 complaining about the trespass by his sister, her husband and 30 gunda elements into his property and the removal of the standing Areka Nut crop - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16826 WP No. 102566 of 2025 in the said property. This aspect is denied by the respondents. However, it is admitted that there was a call made to the police helpline Number on “112”, informing the said police helpline about the trespass and removal of Areka Nut. 15. Once, such an information has been provided by any citizen to the police helpline or to the police station and that information discloses the commission of a cognizable offence as in this case, inasmuch as the trespass into the property of the petitioner and removal of Areka Nut is a cognizable offence in terms of Sections 441 and 427 of the Indian Penal code. The information disclosing the offence ex facie being cognizable there was no enquiry which was required to be conducted as sought to be contended by the learned AGA. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra) is very clear. 16. The Apex Court has also stated that in the event of a Police officer not registering the offence when a cognizable offence is disclosed, action must be taken against the erring officials, who do not register an FIR. 17. In the aforesaid circumstances and on the basis of the aforesaid reasoning, I pass the following: ORDER (a) A Mandamus is issued, directing the respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 01.02.2022 and register the FIR in pursuance of the complaint submitted by the petitioner on 20.01.2022 and thereafter investigate the matter. (b) The Superintendent of Police, Uttara Kannada District is directed to enquire into the matter and take suitable action against the respondent No.4 for violation of the directions issued by the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari (supra) and submit a report to this Court, within a period of eight weeks from today. (c) With the above observation, the writ petition stands allowed.” - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16826 WP No. 102566 of 2025 4. In the light of the aforesaid circumstance and the mushrooming of petitions before this Court on the score that the crime is not registered or crime is not registered even in cognizable offences, the State shall take action against the concerned police officer. 5. Now that the crime is registered, it shall be seen that the investigation is conducted in accordance with law. 6. For the aforesaid reasons, the petition stands disposed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KGK/CT-ASC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 34