- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25706-DB WA No. 1851 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1851 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: 1. MS. SHIVAMMA M AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS D/O LATE T. MANCHAIAH R/AT No.3848, 1ST CROSS SRIRAMPURA NANJANGUD MYSURU - 571 301 …APPELLANT (BY SRI ASHOK KUMAR N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY ROOM NO.320, 3RD FLOOR VIDHANASOUDHA BENGALURU - 01 2. DIRECTOR-GENERAL & INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KARNATAKA STATE POLICE HEADQUARTERS Digitally signed by SRIDEVI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25706-DB WA No. 1851 of 2025 NO.2, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 3. COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITY ACT No.55, 2ND FLOOR ABHAYA SANKEERNA KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD BUILDING RISALDAR STREET SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU - 560 020 4. SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE HYDER ALI ROAD KITTUR RANI CHENNAMMA CIRCLE JALAPURI MYSORE - 570 019 5. INCHARGE OFFICER NANJANGUD TOWN POLICE STATION POLICE DEPARTMENT NANJANGUD MYSURU - 571 301 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI K.S. HARISH, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT 1961 READ WITH ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 PRAYING TO PASS THE FOLLOWING ORDER FOR THE EXPEDITIOUS REDRESSAL OF HER PROBLEM WHICH HAS AGGRAVATED - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25706-DB WA No. 1851 of 2025 BECAUSE OF THE ABDICATION OF THE DUTY BY ALL THE RESPONDENT PARTIES TOWARDS THE APPELLANT i) TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED SINGLE BENCH OF THIS HON'BLE HIGH COURT DATED 18/08/2025 IN W.P. NO.14847/2025 & ETC. THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 18.08.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP.No.14847/2025 (GM-Police). The appellant had filed the said petition, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to respondent No.5 - the Officer In-Charge, Nanjangud Town Police Station, to register an FIR against the accused under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [BNS] r/w Section 92 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [the RPWD Act]. The appellant had alleged that the accused had been tormenting her - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25706-DB WA No. 1851 of 2025 and had hurled abuses on her. The accused are the appellant's immediate neighbours. 2. The appellant claims that she is a person with disability and submits that the State is bound to protect persons with disabilities and to take cognizance of incidents of abuse, violence and exploitation by virtue of Section 7 of the RPWD Act. 3. By an earlier order dated 24.07.2025, the learned Single Judge had directed respondent No.5 to consider the appellant's complaint and revert with necessary instructions, and had observed that if the material disclosed the commission of a cognizable offence, the police authorities must act without delay. Pursuant to the said order, the learned Additional Government Advocate placed on record copies of the statements recorded by the Sub-Inspector, Nanjangud Town Police. The statements of the neighbours indicated that words had been exchanged between them and the appellant regarding the construction of a compound wall in their respective properties. However, they denied having abused the appellant or having spoken anything touching her character or her disability. Additionally, the neighbours had stated that they would - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25706-DB WA No. 1851 of 2025 work out their remedies regarding the dispute pertaining to the construction of a compound wall in an appropriate civil suit. They had also assured that there would be no occasion for any complaint by the appellant. 4. Section 7(1) of the RPWD Act provides that the appropriate Government shall take measures to protect persons with disabilities from all forms of abuse, violence and exploitation and to prevent the same. Section 7 of the RPWD Act is set out below: "7. Protection from abuse, violence and exploitation. (1) The appropriate Government shall take measures to protect persons with disabilities from all forms of abuse, violence and exploitation and to prevent the same, shall- (a) take cognizance of incidents of abuse, violence and exploitation and provide legal remedies available against such incidents; (b) take steps for avoiding such incidents and prescribe the procedure for its reporting; (c) take steps to rescue, protect and rehabilitate victims of such incidents; and (d) create awareness and make available information among the public. (2) Any person or registered organisation who or which has reason to believe that an act of abuse, Violence or exploitation has been, or is being, or is likely to be committed against any person with disability, may give information about it to the Executive Magistrate within the local limits of whose jurisdiction such incidents occur. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25706-DB WA No. 1851 of 2025 (3) The Executive Magistrate on receipt of such information, shall take immediate steps to stop or prevent its occurrence, as the case may be, or pass such order as he deems fit for the protection of such person with disability including an order- (a) to rescue the victim of such act, authorising the police or any organisation working for persons with disabilities to provide for the safe custody or rehabilitation of such person, or both, as the case may be; (b) for providing protective custody to the person with disability, if such person so desires; (c) to provide maintenance to such person with disability. (4) Any police officer who receives a complaint or otherwise comes to know of abuse, violence or exploitation towards any person with disability shall inform the aggrieved person of- (a) his or her right to apply for protection under sub-section (2) and the particulars of the Executive Magistrate having jurisdiction to provide assistance; (b) the particulars of the nearest organisation or institution working for the rehabilitation of persons with disabilities; (c) the right to free legal aid; and (d) the right to file a complaint under the provisions of this Act or any other law dealing with such offence: Provided that nothing in this section shall be construed in any manner as to relieve the police officer from his duty to proceed in accordance with law upon receipt of information as to the commission of a cognizable offence. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25706-DB WA No. 1851 of 2025 (5) If the Executive Magistrate finds that the alleged act or behaviour constitutes an offence under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860), or under any other law for the time being in force, he may forward the complaint to that effect to the Judicial or Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, having jurisdiction in the matter." 5. In the present case, the record indicates that words were exchanged between the appellant and her neighbours regarding the construction of a compound wall between the properties. It was denied that the appellant was subjected to any abuse because of her abilities and it was assured by her neighbours that there would not be any reason for complaints by the appellant. 6. In the given context, the learned Single Judge found that no directions were necessary. However, the court had also observed that if there was any occasion in the future, the appellant was at liberty to approach the Executive Magistrate and the jurisdictional Police, who would necessarily act in terms of the procedure that is contemplated. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that since the appellant had reported that the neighbours had hurled abuses, it was necessary for the concerned authorities to register - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25706-DB WA No. 1851 of 2025 an FIR and a direction to this effect was required to be issued by the learned Single Judge. He also referred to a decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Sree Basavanand Swamigalu vs. State of Karnataka (WP.No.100082/2023), whereby the court had quashed an endorsement and directed registration of an FIR. He also submitted that the learned Single Judge was bound by the said precedent. 8. We find no infirmity with the decision of the learned Single Judge. We also note that in the present case, the appellant has not exhausted the remedies available under Section 175 (3) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [BNSS] and has directly approached the Court for the said relief. However, the learned Single Judge has also protected the appellant's right and observed that, in the event of any future occasion, she had the liberty to approach the concerned authorities. 9. The contention that the learned Single Judge was bound to follow the conclusion in Sree Basavanand Swamigalu vs State of Karnataka (supra) is unpersuasive. The said decision was rendered on the facts of that case. The said order is a short order - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:25706-DB WA No. 1851 of 2025 and does not disclose the complete contextual facts in which it was rendered. 10. The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE SD List No.: 2 Sl No.: 21