- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4638 WP No. 32360 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 32360 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: C R RANGANATH ARUN S/O S CHIDAMBARARAJ, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT FLAT NO.3D, MAYFLOWER, ANNAPOORNA APARTEMENTS, 4TH STREET, KK PUDUR, COIMBATORE, TAMIL NADU- 600038. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SURYA S, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.SUJI MALAYIL.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S AAKRUTI NIRMITI LTD. REGD. OFFICE AT NO. 002, DEVIDAYAL ROAD, MULUND, MUMBAI-400 080. REP. BY ITS JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI. VITTAL PATEL. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU CITY, INFANTRY ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4638 WP No. 32360 of 2025 3. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HEBBAGODI POLICE STATION, REP. BY ITS SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MUDDURAJA N., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI.B.RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R2 & R3) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER REPRESENTATION OF THE PETITIONER AT ANNEXURE - E, DATED 19/08/2025 AND TO EXECUTE THE WARRANT ISSUED BY HON'BLE 4TH ADDL. DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU IN C.C.NO.313/2022 AND TRACE THE WHEREABOUTS OF ABOVE R.4. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4638 WP No. 32360 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The petitioner has the benefit of the order dated 11.12.2023 in CC No. 313/2022 on the file of the IV Additional District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bengaluru [for short, 'the District Forum']. The Forum has directed the first respondent and others who are arrayed as opposite parties to execute sale deed in favour of the petitioner for an apartment with the observation that if the respondent and the others fail to execute the sale deed within 45 days, they must refund the sale consideration of Rs.31,13,730/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 2. The District Forum has also granted certain monetary compensation towards deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, mental agony and cost of litigation. The petitioner has commenced the enforcement proceedings with the District Forum in Execution Application No.66/2024, and the District - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4638 WP No. 32360 of 2025 Forum, at the petitioner's instance, has issued process for service of notice to the respondent through the jurisdictional Police and subsequently has taken cognizance for an offence under Section 72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [for short, 'the Act'] resulting in issuance of Non-Bailable Warrant to the first respondent and the others. 3. The petitioner seeks a direction to the Commissioner of Police, Bengaluru, to execute the process issued by the District Forum asserting that no action has been taken despite repeated representations frustrating the enforcement. On 06.01.2026, upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri B Ravindranath, the learned Additional Government Advocate, is called upon to accept notice for the second and third respondents and to ensure that communication of the present petition is served on the first respondent. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4638 WP No. 32360 of 2025 4. In compliance with this direction, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the intimation is delivered and his instructions are that the first respondent has appeared in the pending enforcement proceedings with the District Forum. Sri N Mudduraja, the learned counsel for the first respondent, reiterates the same and also submits that the first respondent is diligently following a possible settlement with the petitioner. 5. However, on behalf of the petitioner, it is submitted that the first respondent has not appeared before the District Forum yesterday and therefore the District Forum has issued Non-Bailable Warrant. This Court's indulgence must be if there is any inaction on behalf of the second respondent in executing and ensuring that the warrants issued by the District Forum, or if there is any delay or lack of diligence in the second respondent ensuring the warrants issued by the District Forum in the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4638 WP No. 32360 of 2025 enforcement proceedings as that will only result in frustration of an order under the Consumer Protection Act defeating the very purpose for which the proceedings are conducted under such enactment. 6. If the first respondent is keen on a settlement, the first respondent's representative must duly enter appearance in the enforcement proceedings and seek appropriate orders, and the first respondent cannot seek any indulgence in the present proceedings without entering appearance in the proceedings with the District Forum. The second respondent must therefore be called upon to ensure that the warrant, if any, issued by the District Court is executed at the earliest in redressal of the petitioner's grievance with a delay in execution of the warrant. As such, the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:4638 WP No. 32360 of 2025 ORDER [a] The petition is allowed calling upon the second respondent to ensure that all measures are taken through his office to execute the warrant, if any, issued by the District Forum; [b] The second respondent is also called upon to file a report with the registry of this Court within two weeks about the execution of the warrant that is issued. SD/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE AN/-