IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 6614 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

SMT. GEETHA R, D/O T. RANGASWAMY, W/O. T. MALLIKARJUNA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT HOUSE IN SY. NO.73/1, SHIVASANDRA VILLAGE, THIPPASANDRA HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 159.

ALSO RESIDING AT NO. 126, 13TH CROSS, 1ST K.BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 010.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH R.P, ADVOCATE)

Digitally signed AND:

by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, Karnataka HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, POLICE BHAVAN, B.M. ROAD, RAMANAGAR, RAMANAGAR DISTRICT - 562 159.

3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, TAVAREKERE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU SOUTH, BENGALURU - 562 162.

4. THE SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KUDUR POLICE STATION, KUDUR, MAGADI TALUK, RAMANAGAR - 561 101.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAHUL CARIAPPA, AGA)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R-2 TO 4 TO GIVE NECESSARY POLICE PROTECTION TO THE PETITIONER AND HER FAMILY MEMBERS BY CONSIDERING THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 24.07.2024 AND ON 08.01.2025 AS PER ANNX-AP AND AQ.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINAY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayers:

"i) to issue writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to 4 to give necessary police protection to the petitioner and her family members by considering the complaint lodged by the petitioner dtd.24/7/2024 and on 8/1/2025, as per Annexure-AP and AQ.

ii) issue such other Writ, Orders or Directions as deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case."

2. Heard Shri Somashekharaiah R.P., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Rahul Cariappa, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents.

3. The petitioner is said to have registered a complaint on 24.07.2024 against the other family members. Therefore, the dispute that is looming large in the case at hand is between the members of the same family or the siblings, as the case would be. The petitioner then seeks police protection by submitting a representation on the score that the other family members are creating a problem to the possession of the petitioner. No civil suit is registered on the same issue.

4. The learned Additional Government Advocate on instructions and verification of the records would submit that they have also filed a civil suit, which is pending adjudication before the competent Civil Court and in the representation nothing is found that is warranting police protection. By way of police protection, the learned Additional Government Advocate seeks to emphasise that the petitioner wants to arm twist the defendants in the suit.

5. Be that as it may. If the threat looms large against the citizen and that threat is in real time, the police are necessary to accord such protection to the life and limb of those persons. The circular dated 14.11.2018 is apposite to be referred to where the Government itself recognises that if there is real threat in real time to the life and limb of any person, the police protection should be granted and not to be misused for collateral purpose.

With the aforesaid observations, the petition stands disposed.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA)

JUDGE JY List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 CT: BHK