- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35757 WP No. 23541 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 23541 OF 2022 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: RANGAIAH S/O. HANUMANTHAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS BETTALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 123 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VASUDEVA IYENGAR K.T., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE BY GOVERNMENT THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE CENTRAL ZONE, BANGALORE - 560001. 2. SRI. MUNIRAJU AGED MAJOR S/O SIDDAPPA BETTALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562123 3. SRI. SURESH S/O. CHANNARAYAPPA AGED MAJOR BETTALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562123 4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GOLLAHALLI GRAMPANCHAYAT GOLLAHALLI NELAMANGALA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562123 Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35757 WP No. 23541 of 2022 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; VIDE ORDER DATED 10.09.2025, NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ENDORSEMENT DATED 18.10.2022 ISSUED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, NELAMANGALA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-562123 AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the endorsement dated 18.10.2022 issued by the Police Inspector, Nelamangala police station directing the petitioner to work out his remedy in a civil suit filed by him in O.S.No.24/2022. 2. The petitioner contends that he is the owner in possession of a residential property in Bettalli village, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk. He claimed that the respondent Nos.2 and 3 had illegally entered his property and vandalized a - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35757 WP No. 23541 of 2022 shed and manure pit and also cut down the eucalyptus trees by using heavy earth moving equipments. The petitioner and his wife approached jurisdictional police informing the highhanded act of respondent Nos.2 and 3 and that the jurisdictional police had issued an endorsement dated 14.09.2022 that they cannot entertain a civil dispute. The petitioner approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 23.09.2022 who directed the Police Inspector, Nelamangala to look into the matter and take necessary action. Accordingly, jurisdictional police have looked into the case of the petitioner and issued an endorsement dated 18.10.2022 informing the petitioner and his wife that as they had already filed O.S.No.24/2022, they may approach the Civil Court for necessary reliefs. The petitioner is therefore before this Court questioning the said endorsement. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the police instead of providing protection have remained mute spectators to the highhanded acts of the respondent Nos.2 and 3. 4. The learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand submitted that the complaint of the petitioner and - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35757 WP No. 23541 of 2022 his wife disclosed a civil wrong and therefore the police was justified in issuing the impugned endorsement. 3. It is not in dispute that the petitioner has approached the Civil Court by filing a suit in O.S.No.24/2022 against the respondent Nos.2 and 3 in this writ petition and that the Civil Court rejected the application filed by the petitioner for interim injunction. If the petitioner has any grievance about the respondent Nos.2 and 3 taking law into their hands, he has to work out his remedy before the Civil Court and he cannot compel the police to take action against the respondent No.2 and 3. Hence, the impugned endorsement is just and proper and no interference is warranted. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 is permitted to file memo of appearance within a period of 10 days. Sd/- (R. NATARAJ) JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16