- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6322 WP No. 3186 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 3186 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. KOTTALAPALLI SHAMEEN BANU, W/O KOTTAPALLI CHAND BASHA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO14/2, BEHIND MINERVA MILL GOPALPURA, MAGADI ROAD BENGALURU-560023. 2. SMT. R. PRASANNA KUMARI W/O LATE B.K RAJU, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT. NO.14/2, BEHIND MINERVA MILL GOPALPURA, MAGADI ROAD BENGALURU-560023. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. TRIVIKRAM S.,ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6322 WP No. 3186 of 2026 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY ROOM NO. 320, 3RD FLOOR, VIDHANASOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001. 2. DIRECTOR-GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, POLICE HEADQUARTERS, NO.2, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU 560001. 3. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE INFANTRY ROAD, OPPOSITE COFFEE BOARD BENGALURU - 560001. 4. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BENGALURU WEST SOUTH END CIRCLE, BASAVANAGUDI BENGALURU 560004. 5. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE VIJAYNAGAR, SUB-DIVISION, SUBRAMANYAPURA, BENGALURU 560078. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6322 WP No. 3186 of 2026 6. STATION HOUSE OFFICER MAGADI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU- 560001. 7. DEVI W/O LATE B K SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO 14/2, 1ST FLOOR, BEHIND MINERVA MILLS, GOPALAPURA, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560023. 8. SAJITH S/O LATE B K SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/AT NO 14/2, 1ST FLOOR, BEHIND MINERVA MILLS, GOPALAPURA, MAGADI ROAD, BENGALURU-560023. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B. RAVINDRANATH., AGA) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 6 TO IMMEDIATELY TAKE ACTION AGAINST - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6322 WP No. 3186 of 2026 RESPONDENT NO 7 AND 8 AND ALL OTHER WHO HAVE TRESPASSED THE HOUSE OF THE PETITIONERS AND VACATE THEM IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT ANY DELAY; B) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO 6 TO IMMEDIATELY ACCEPT THE COMPLAINT BY THE PETITIONERS AND REGISTER AN FIR BASED ON THE COMPLAINT MADE BY THEM, IN TERMS OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT I.E IN LALITHA KUMARI V/S STATE OF UTTER PRADESH 2014, 4 SCC, 339; C) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT DIRECTING THE STATION HOUSE OFFICE THAT IS RESPONDENT NO 6 TO EXTEND POLICE PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONER HEREIN FOR THE NEXT FORTNIGHT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6322 WP No. 3186 of 2026 ORAL ORDER The first petitioner asserts that she is put in possession of the property bearing No.14/2 situated behind Minerva Mill, Gopalapuram, Magadi Road, Bengaluru [the subject property] by the second petitioner, under a rental agreement dated 04.01.2026 and that on 16.01.2026 the seventh and eighth respondents [who are the wife and son of late B K Srinivas] have instigated certain members of a Mahila Sangha to barge into the subject property and force the petitioners out of the subject property. 2. The first petitioner's specific case is that she resides in the subject property with her daughter and her minor children and another lady, but the eighth respondent, who is supported by the seventh respondent [his mother], has forced her out of the property to occupy the subject property. As regards the cause for the present petition, the petitioners assert that the jurisdictional Police have not acted - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6322 WP No. 3186 of 2026 upon their repeated complaints and that has encouraged the seventh and eighth respondents to take law into their hands and dispossess the petitioners from the subject property. 3. This Court, on 03.02.2026, upon hearing Sri Trivikram S, the learned counsel for the petitioners, and Sri B Ravindranath, the learned Additional Government Advocate, who was assisted by Sri Kowshik N V, the Police Sub-Inspector, has called upon the Police Sub Inspector to visit the subject property and file a report on the occupants of the subject property and the details of when those occupants have entered possession. This Court has also taken on record the submissions by the Police Sub Inspector that the seventh and eighth respondents have filed some information of an altercation on 16.01.2026 and that these respondents have been issued with the endorsement that they must work out their remedy in a civil Court - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6322 WP No. 3186 of 2026 and that none from the petitioners have filed any information. 4. In terms of this Court's order as aforesaid, the Police Sub Inspector has filed his report enclosing the panchnama and photographs enclosed taken during the inspection along with documents such as the death certificate of the seventh respondent's husband and the election card and Aadhaar card of the seventh respondent. The Police Inspector is categorical in his report that the seventh respondent and her son [the eighth respondent] are residing in the first floor of the subject property and that they have been in possession of this property from the year 1992. When queried on the occupation of the ground floor, the Police Sub Inspector states that it comprises of commercial properties that are in the possession of third parties. 5. Sri Trivikram S, placing on record a copy of information sent by registered post, photographs - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6322 WP No. 3186 of 2026 and a medical certificate, proposes to reiterate the petitioners' case even impugning the inspection stating that it is in the presence of the eighth respondent and persons of his choice. The learned counsel argues that therefore a case is made out for directions to the sixth respondent [Station House Officer of the jurisdictional Police Station] to take action against the seventh and the eighth respondents. 6. This Court must first observe that the question of occupation of the subject property is a question of fact which must be ascertained by the competent Court and this must especially be so when it is undisputed that a civil suit is pending. This Court must next observe that some altercation is shown, but who is the aggressor is a matter of investigation and further action. For the present, this Court is persuaded to accept, especially even with the petitioners placing on record a copy of the notice - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6322 WP No. 3186 of 2026 dated 21.01.2026 issued under Section 130 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 calling upon not just the eighth respondent, but also the second petitioner and certain others to execute a bond of good behaviour; that if the petitioners are aggrieved because they have been assaulted by aggressors, they must have their remedy under the provisions of the BNSS to file a private complaint and no case is made out for a direction to register the first information in the present case. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-