- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19658 WP No. 2829 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 2829 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SRI. V SREENIVASAIAH S/O. LATE VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT NO.5, HOSAHALLI VILLAGE, THALAGHATTAPURA POST, BENGALURU - 560 109 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SREENIVASAIAH, PARTY IN PERSON, PETITIONER) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME SECRETARIAT, 2ND FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU CITY, NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU SOUTH DIVISION, SOUTH END CIRCLE, BASAVANAGUDI, BENGALURU-560 004. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19658 WP No. 2829 of 2026 4. THE POLICE-INSPECTOR/STATION HOUSE OFFICER, THALAGHATTAPURA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU - 560 109 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTITORARI QUASHING THE ENDORSEMENT DATED 10.11.2025 AT ANNEXURE-A ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT AND CONSEQUENTLY B) ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE 4TH RESPONDENT TO GIVE POLICE PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONER IMPLEMENTING THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION GRANTED BY THE HON'BLE TRIAL COURT IN O.S.NO.1144/2016 DATED 22.09.2016 AT ANNEXURE-E1, AS AND WHEN NEED ARISES DURING THE TEMPORARY INJUNCTION IN FORCE, IN THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, FRESH MATTERS LIST, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed assailing the endorsement dated 10.11.2025 issued by respondent No.4 as per Annexure-A. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19658 WP No. 2829 of 2026 2. The petitioner claims to be the absolute owner in lawful possession and enjoyment of the property bearing BBMP Khatha No.5, Property Nos.1/5-1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, situated at Sreenivas Gardens, Hosahalli Main Village, Uttarahalli Hobli. The property is described as comprising an old A.C. sheet shed, an old Mangalore tiled house, and several trees, namely two jackfruit trees, one tamarind tree and two Nilgiri trees, all stated to have been grown and nurtured by the petitioner. The petitioner asserts that he is in settled possession of the schedule property. However, alleging unlawful interference at the hands of the defendants, the petitioner was constrained to institute a suit for bare injunction. In the said suit, the petitioner also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking an order of temporary injunction. 3. The Trial Court, upon consideration of the pleadings and the material placed on record, having been satisfied that the petitioner had made out a prima facie - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19658 WP No. 2829 of 2026 case and that the balance of convenience was in his favour, proceeded to grant an order of temporary injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property. The petitioner submits that the said interim order has been periodically extended and ultimately came to be made absolute by order dated 01.06.2018. Consequently, the defendants stand injuncted from interfering with the petitioner’s possession pending disposal of the suit. 4. The principal grievance of the petitioner is that, notwithstanding the subsistence of the aforesaid injunction order, the defendants have continued their attempts to interfere with the petitioner’s possession. It is specifically alleged that the defendants, in blatant violation of the injunction order, brought a JCB machine to the suit schedule property and attempted to trespass upon the same. In this regard, the petitioner claims to have lodged a written complaint before the jurisdictional police, as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19658 WP No. 2829 of 2026 evidenced by Annexure–J. However, respondent No.4 has issued the impugned endorsement stating that the dispute is civil in nature and has declined to register the complaint or take any action. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate, placing reliance on the circulars issued by the State Government, would contend that the jurisdictional police officers are not empowered to act upon complaints merely on the basis of civil court orders. By referring to the original circulars issued in Kannada, it is contended that police intervention is warranted only in cases where there is a specific direction issued by a competent Civil Court seeking police protection. In the absence of such a specific direction, it is contended that the police cannot be compelled to act on allegations arising out of civil disputes. 6. Be that as it may, this Court is of the considered view that an order of interim injunction granted by a competent Civil Court cannot be rendered illusory or - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19658 WP No. 2829 of 2026 ineffective. Such orders are required to be implemented in their true letter and spirit. Though it is open for the plaintiff to initiate proceedings under Order XXXIX Rule 2A of the Code of Civil Procedure for disobedience of the injunction order, it would not be just or appropriate to relegate the plaintiff to a protracted and cumbersome remedy when there is a clear allegation of violation of the injunction order coupled with acts that may constitute cognizable offences. 7. In the facts of the present case, though the jurisdictional police officer has declined to act upon the petitioner’s complaint and has issued an endorsement, this Court is of the view that the matter cannot be closed on that basis. If the petitioner lodges a fresh complaint enclosing all relevant documents, including the order of temporary injunction, the jurisdictional police are duty- bound to examine the same in accordance with law. If the allegations disclose that the defendants have attempted to enter the suit schedule property in violation of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:19658 WP No. 2829 of 2026 subsisting injunction order, such acts may prima facie constitute the offence of criminal trespass. In such an event, the police are required to act in accordance with law and take appropriate steps on the complaint so lodged. 8. With the aforesaid observations and liberty reserved to the petitioner to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56