- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12986 WP No. 29587 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 29587 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE) BETWEEN: 1. H. G. PRASHANTH S/O SRI H.N. GOPINATHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 1411, 'EESHAVASYAM', 2ND CROSS, ASHOKNAGAR, BSK 1ST STAGE, BENGALURU 560050 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. YAMINI MUNIRAJ, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE INFANTRY ROAD, VASANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 001 3. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE SOUTH DIVISION, BENGALURU 560 004 Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12986 WP No. 29587 of 2025 4. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BASAVANAGUDI SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU - 560 004 5. THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER BASAVANAGUDI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU CITY POLICE, BENGALURU 560 004 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ADITYA DIWAKAR, AGA) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION COMMANDING THE RESPONDENTS, IN PARTICULAR RESPONDENT NO.2 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, SOUTH DIVISION, BENGALURU, TO FORTHWITH ACCEPT AND ACT UPON THE WRITTEN REPRESENTATION/ COMPLAINT OF THE PETITIONER DATED 18.07.2025 (ANNEXURE-A), BY REGISTERING AN FIR AND INITIATING FAIR, IMPARTIAL AND EFFECTIVE INVESTIGATION AGAINST THE NAMED ACCUSED, STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, WITHOUT YIELDING TO PRESSURE, INFLUENCE OR POSITION OF POWER OF THE ACCUSED PERSON AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12986 WP No. 29587 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The captioned writ petition is filed invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 – the Commissioner of Police, to act upon the written representation/complaint submitted by the petitioner and to register an FIR against a sitting Member of the Legislative Assembly. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. 3. At the outset, this Court is of the considered view that the relief sought in the present writ petition is not maintainable in the light of the settled principles governing the field. It is trite law that if a jurisdictional police officer fails or refuses to register a First Information Report on the basis of a complaint disclosing commission of a cognizable offence, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Sakiri Vasu v. State - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12986 WP No. 29587 of 2025 of U.P., reported in (2008) 2 SCC 409, has categorically held that the complainant has an efficacious statutory remedy under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C'). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that such a person can approach the Superintendent of Police under Section 154(3) of the Cr.P.C. and, if necessary, thereafter invoke the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. seeking appropriate directions for registration of the FIR and investigation. It is further clarified that the Magistrate has wide powers to ensure proper investigation and that writ petitions should not ordinarily be entertained in such matters when alternate statutory remedies are available. 4. In the present case, the petitioner has directly approached this Court without demonstrating that the remedies contemplated under the Cr.P.C., have been exhausted. The extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court is discretionary and is not intended to be invoked in routine - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12986 WP No. 29587 of 2025 matters, particularly when an efficacious alternative remedy is available under the statute itself. The mere fact that the complaint is directed against a sitting MLA would not, by itself, confer any special ground to bypass the statutory mechanism. 5. This Court is therefore of the view that the prayer sought in the writ petition is misconceived and not maintainable. The petitioner has an adequate and efficacious remedy in accordance with law, and this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition at this stage. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. However, it is made clear that dismissal of this petition shall not preclude the petitioner from availing such remedy as is permissible in law, including the remedies provided under the Cr.P.C. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK