Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2026 DAILYLAW 28397 (KAR)

SMT SHYLAJA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/21308/2026 · 2026-07-15

Suraj Govindaraj

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010475082026 NC: 2026:KHC:36088 WP No. 21308 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 21308 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: SMT SHYLAJA W/O V.S. SRIKANTH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NO.95/42, 8TH CROSS, NEAR KARTHIK NURSING HOME, WILSON GARDEN, BANGALORE SOUTH, BENGALURU - 560 027 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MOHANKUMARA D, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY 2. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER (SHO) VISHWANATHAPURA POLICE STATION DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE (S.P) ADDRESS NO.5, MILLERS ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010475082026 NC: 2026:KHC:36088 WP No. 21308 of 2026 BANGALORE - 560001 4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (D.G.P) ADDRESS: POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BEHIND RBI, BANGALORE-560 001 5. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (I.G.P) ADDRESS : POLICE HEAD QUARTERS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BEHIND RBI, BANGALORE-560 001 6. SMT. SUSHEELAMMA W/O LATE GANGADHARAPPA, D/O LATE THAMMEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT MANAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, KUNDANA HOBLI, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT - 562 110 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DEVARAJ C H, GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R5 NOTICE TO R6 IS DISPENSED WITH ON 15.07.2026) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT OR ORDER/S SEEKING A DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE POLICE PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONER, HER FAMILY MEMBERS AND TO HER PROPERTY WHENEVER PETITIONER UNDERTAKES FENCING OR ANY LAWFUL ACTIVITIES IN THE SUBJECT LAND, SO AS TO SAFEGUARD THEIR LIVES, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY FROM FURTHER UNLAWFUL ACTS CAUSED BY RESPONDENT NO.6, IN TERMS OF REPRESENTATION DATED 12.07.2026, VIDE ANNEXURE-G AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010475082026 NC: 2026:KHC:36088 WP No. 21308 of 2026 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. Learned Government Advocate accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 to 5. 2. Notice to respondent No.6 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order to be passed. 3. The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs: "a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order/s seeking a direction to the Respondent No.2 to provide adequate police protection to the Petitioner, her family members & to her property whenever Petitioner undertakes fencing or any lawful activities in the subject land, so as to safeguard their lives, liberty and property from further unlawful acts caused by Respondent No.6, in terms of representation dated 12.07.2026, vide ANNEXURE - G. b) Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court deem fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity." 4. The contention of the petitioner is that whenever the petitioner goes to her alleged property to fence the land, - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010475082026 NC: 2026:KHC:36088 WP No. 21308 of 2026 respondent No.6 interferes with the said activity and there is a threat to the life and liberty of the petitioner. On that basis, the petitioner having approached the respondent - police, the respondent - police have not granted police protection to enable the petitioner to carry out the fencing activity. 5. If that be so, it is for the petitioner to approach the necessary Civil Court seeking for appropriate reliefs including police protection and it is only if, such police protection is ordered by the Civil Court, that the police would be required to grant such protection. Without any order by the Civil Court, the question of granting police protection and thereby involving the police in a civil dispute is not permissible. 6. For the above reasons, the petition stands dismissed reserving the above liberty. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE ND/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 50