JALALSAB AND ORS vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS

Court
Karnataka High Court

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11242
WP No. 200772 of 2021


CNR: KAHC030260672021




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA


KALABURAGI BENCH

TH
DATED THIS THE 12 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

WRIT PETITION NO. 200772 OF 2021 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:


1. JALALSAB
S/O KAHSIMSAB MULLOANORE
AGE: 56 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O VILLAGE HONAGERA
TQ AND DIST-YADGIR

2. SMT. GIRIJA PATIL W/O RAVINDR REDDY
AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: LEGAL PRACTITIONER
R/O BENGALURU

3. SMT. SHAKUNTHALAMMA W/O LATE
BASWANTHARAYA MALIPATIL
AGE: 75 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND
HOUSEHOLD, R/O VILLAGE HONAGERA
TQ AND DIST: YADGIR
…PETITIONERS









Digitally signed by
NIJAMUDDIN
JAMKHANDI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. NARESH V. KULKARNI AND
SRI. N K KANTHARAJU., ADVOCATES)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPT . OF HOME VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU-560001

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
OFFICE OF THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
YADGIR-585201

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11242
WP No. 200772 of 2021


CNR: KAHC030260672021


3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
YADGIR-585201

4. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE
RURAL POLICE STATION
YADGIR-585201

5. THE CPI, RURAL POLICE STATION
YADGIR-585201
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.VIRANAGOUDA BIRADAR, AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.4 AND 5 TO
REGISTER THE FIR ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT FILED
BY THE PETITIONER NO.1 AND 2 AGAINST EARLIER PSI,
RURAL POLICE STATION, YADGIRI EARANA MAGGI PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE-F DATED 28.02.2020 ANNEXURE-G DATED
11.03.2020, ANNEXURE-H DATED 14.03.2020 AND FURTHER
STATEMENTS AT ANNEXURE-K AND K1 DATED 16.03.2020 AND
LEGAL NOTICE AT ANNEXURE-L DATED 05.02.2021 2) TO PASS
ANY OTHER ORDER AS THIS HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS FIT
UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING
‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL

ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed seeking the following prayers:
“1. Issue a writ of Mandamus directing the
Respondent No.4 and 5 to register the FIR on
the basis of the Complaint filed by the
Petitioner No.1 and 2 against earlier PSI,
Earanna Maggi, Rural Police Station, Yadgir

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11242
WP No. 200772 of 2021


CNR: KAHC030260672021


produced at Annexure-F dated 28.02.2020,
Annexure-G dated 11.03.2020, Annexure-H
dated 14.03.2020 and further statements at
Annexure-K and K1 dated 16.03.2020 and
Legal Notice at Annexure-L dated 05.02.2021
in the interest of justice and equity.
2. To pass any other order as this Hon’ble
Court deems fit under the facts and
circumstances of the case, in the interest of
justice and equity.”


2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the one Smt.Devamma filed a suit for injunction. In the
said suit, the temporary injunction was granted by the trial
Court and based on such a temporary injunction order, the
PSI, Yadgir Rural Police Station, permitted the plaintiff in
the suit to harvest the crop illegally. The petitioners,
therefore, filed a complaint. The police registered the
complaint against the plaintiff in the suit. However, they
failed to register FIR against the concerned police officers.
Hence, he seeks to allow the writ petition by issuing
necessary direction to the Station House Officer, Rural
Police Station, Yadgiri, to register a crime against the then

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11242
WP No. 200772 of 2021


CNR: KAHC030260672021


PSIs as per the complaint dated 28.02.2020, produced at
Annexure-F.


3. Per contra, the learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the respondents submits that the
dispute between the petitioners and the plaintiff in the suit
is purely civil in nature. The jurisdictional police visited the
spot only to ascertain the factual matrix, however, the
police officers concerned had no role in harvesting the
crop. It is submitted that, insofar as illegal harvest of the
crop by the plaintiff in the suit is concerned, a crime has
been registered and charge sheet has been filed.
Accordingly, he seeks to dismiss the petition.


4. I have heard the arguments of the learned
counsel for the petitioners, the learned Additional
Government Advocate for the respondents and
meticulously perused the material available on record.


5. One Smt. Devamma, wife of late
Sri.Vishwanathreddy, filed a suit in OS.No.47/2020 against

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11242
WP No. 200772 of 2021


CNR: KAHC030260672021


the petitioners herein and others, seeking the relief of
permanent injunction in respect of agricultural land
bearing Sy.No.247, measuring 14 acres 6 guntas, situated
at Honagera Village, Yadgiri Taluk and District. The
material on record indicates that the trial Court granted an
order of temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiff
restraining defendant Nos.1 to 7 from causing illegal
interference on the suit schedule property.


6. The grievance of the petitioners is that, taking
advantage of the aforesaid order of temporary injunction,
the plaintiff in the suit, with the help of the police, illegally
harvested the crop grown by the petitioners herein, who
are the cultivators of the land. The petitioners had
submitted a complaint. Based on such complaint, the
jurisdictional police registered Crime.No.36/2020 for the
offences punishable under Sections 506, 341, 504, 143,
149 and 147 of the IPC against the plaintiff in the suit and
others.

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11242
WP No. 200772 of 2021


CNR: KAHC030260672021



7. The specific grievance of the petitioners is that
the jurisdictional Station House Officer ought to have
included the Police Officers, who were present at the spot
and at whose instance the crop was harvested, arraying
them as accused in the said crime. In this regard,
petitioner No.2 submitted a representation dated
05.02.2021, produced at Annexure-L through a post to the
Superintendent of Police, Yadgiri.


8. The respondent State has filed a memo along
with the enquiry report submitted by the Police Inspector,
C.E.N Police Station, Yadgiri. The said report indicates that
the enquiry officer conducted enquiry and noticed that
though the police officers had visited the spot, they had no
role in the alleged harvesting of the crops. In view of the
said report, I am of the considered view that, there is no
material placed on record to indicate that the crop was
harvested by the plaintiff in the suit, and that at the
instance and support of the concerned police officers.
Except producing one photograph which shows that a jeep

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11242
WP No. 200772 of 2021


CNR: KAHC030260672021


was parked at the spot, no material is produced by the
petitioner to show that there is involvement of the police
officers.


9. Be that as it may, the petitioner in the
representation is seeking to register a crime against the
then police officers namely Sri.Iranna Maggie, PSI,
Smt.Manjula, PSI. In my considered view, the respondent
authority after enquiry, prima facie found that the said
police officers had no role to play in the alleged incident.


10. In view of the same, this Court cannot issue a
writ in the nature of mandamus directing the police
authorities to register a crime against the said police
officers. However, it is open to the petitioners to file a
private complaint against the said officers, if so advised, in
accordance with law.


11. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel
for the petitioners in the case of M/S. Godrej Sara Lee
Ltd., v. The Excise and Taxation Officer Cum

- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:11242
WP No. 200772 of 2021


CNR: KAHC030260672021


1
Assessing Authority and Others , has no application as
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, referring to its earlier decision
in the case of Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of
2
Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others held that the writ
petition can be entertained despite the availability of an
alternative remedy on certain circumstances. In the case
on hand, the enquiry report clearly indicates that the said
Police Officers had no role in the alleged incident. Hence, I
am of the considered view that the said judgment has no
application to the facts and circumstances of the case.
However, it is open to the petitioners to work out their
remedies in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ
petition is devoid of merits and the same is rejected .

Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE

ABK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 40

1
Civil Appeal No.5393/2010 dated 01.02.2023
2
( 1998) 8 SCC 1