- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22425 WP No. 36840 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 36840 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SMT. LAKSHMI L WIFE OF M. LAKSHMAN, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.03, 5TH CROSS, DAYANANDA LAYOUT, OPP TATA STEEL GODOWN, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR, BANGALORE NORTH BANGALORE, KARNATAKA - 560 016. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL K.N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, OPPOSITE VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22425 WP No. 36840 of 2025 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANASWADI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 045. 4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, RAMAMURTHY NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 045. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P. YOGANNA, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 25/11/2025 ANNX-F BY REGISTERING THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AGAINST MR LAKSHMAN AND HIS COMPANIONS THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Heard the petitioner's counsel and learned AGA for respondents. 2. The caption petition is filed seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22425 WP No. 36840 of 2025 the petitioner's complaint dated 25.11.2025 and register a FIR. 3. The facts leading to the case are as under: The petitioner contends that on 22.11.2025 at about 11.00 p.m., certain unidentified miscreants allegedly trespassed into the petitioner’s premises, broke open the lock, and committed theft of valuable articles. It is her specific assertion that she immediately approached the jurisdictional police by lodging a written complaint narrating the said incident. 4. The gist of the petitioner’s grievance is that, notwithstanding the lodging of the written complaint, the 4th respondent–jurisdictional police has failed and declined to register a First Information Report, which, according to the petitioner, is in clear contravention of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh (2013) 14 S.C.R 713 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22425 WP No. 36840 of 2025 regarding mandatory registration of FIR in cases disclosing cognizable offences. 5. This Court, on perusal of the material on record, would find that though a written complaint is stated to have been lodged on 22.11.2025, the surrounding circumstances disclose a serious and ongoing familial discord between the petitioner, her husband, son, and daughter-in-law. The records further indicate that an FIR has already been registered against the petitioner on the very same day at about 1.30 p.m., alleging that she had abused her daughter-in-law. 6. On further examination, this Court finds that the petitioner is at loggerheads with her husband and that multiple civil proceedings are pending inter se between the parties. On a pointed query by this Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that the petitioner’s husband has already instituted matrimonial proceedings seeking dissolution of marriage, which is - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22425 WP No. 36840 of 2025 presently pending consideration before the competent Family Court. 7. In the backdrop of the pending civil litigations, including two injunction suits, as well as the matrimonial dispute pending adjudication before the Family Court, this Court is of the considered view that the complaint lodged by the petitioner appears to be a counterblast to the proceedings initiated by her husband and family members. Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the complaint, at this juncture, does not prima facie disclose the commission of a cognizable offence warranting compulsory registration of FIR, particularly, when the foundational issue relating to possession and inter se rights over the subject premises is itself seriously disputed and is sub judice before competent civil fora. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court finds that initiation of criminal machinery in the present factual - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22425 WP No. 36840 of 2025 matrix would amount to an abuse of process. Consequently, no interference is warranted in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE tsn* List No.: 1 Sl No.: 39