IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 5^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 107405 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN:

SRI. MAHADEV SANNAIK, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE & MEMBER OF GRAM PANCHAYAT KANAGALA VILLAGE, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI, R/O: KANAGALA, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI – 591 225.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. KISHOR S. SUTAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, Digitally signed by BELAGAVI DISTRICT, SUBHASH NAGAR, VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL BELAGAVI – 590 016.

Location: Hig h Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad 3. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, GOKAK SUB DIVISION, TQ. GOKAK, DIST. BELAGAVI – 590 001.

4. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, SANKESHWAR POLICE STATION, TQ. SANKESHWAR, BELAGAVI – 590 001.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, AGA FOR RESPONDENT/STATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO. 4 TO CONSIDER MY COMPLAINT DATED. 21-01-2025 VIDE ANNEXURE-C, AND REGISTER A F.I.R AGAINST THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER AND OTHER MEMBERS INVOLVED AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer:

A. Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no. 4 to consider my complaint dated 21-01-2025 vide Annexure-C, and register a F.I.R against the Panchayat Development Officer and other members involved.

B. To issue any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the interest of justice and equity.

2. The petitioner, a member of the Grama Panchayath, seeks to register a complaint against the Panchayat Development Officer and others alleging several cognizable offences. The complaint is not registered. Therefore, the petitioner is before this Court seeking a direction by issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus to register a complaint.

3. Heard Learned counsel Sri. Kishor S. Sutar appearing for the petitoner and learned AGA Sri. T. Hanumareddy appearing for the respondents

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the accused is a Panchayat Development Officer, the complaint is not being registered.

5. The learned AGA would submit that if a direction is issued at the hands of this Court, appropriate action would be taken thereon.

6. On a perusal of the complaint, it would clearly indicate that there are cognizable offences indicated in the said complaint. Therefore, the complaint ought to have been registered in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:

“120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:

120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.

1 (2014) 2 SCC 1

120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.

120.3. If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.

120.4. The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received