IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 34482 OF 2025 (GM-POLICE)

BETWEEN: B SIDDESH S/O RAJANNA AGE ABOUT 41 YEARS AGRICULTURILST R/A MALEBENNURU HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577530 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAMAKRISHNA.N FOR Digitally signed SRI. M.R.HIREMATHAD., ADVOCATE)

by SHARADAVANI B AND:

Location: High Court of Karnataka

1. THE STATE KARNATAKA BY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE DAVANAGERE 577530

2. THE POLICE SUB INSPECTOR MALEBENNURU POLICE STATION MALEBENNURUHARIHARA TALUK DAMANAGERE DISTRICT .

BOTH ARE REP THROUGH STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDINGS BENGALURU- 560001

3. HALESHPAAP S/O SIDDALINGAPPA AGE ABOUT 70 YEARS R/A MALEBENNURU HARIHARA TALUK DAVANAGERE DISTRICT 577530 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. K.P.YOGANNA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT ISSUED BY THE R2 DTD 23.10.2025 BEARING NO. MBR- PS/LPT/61/2025 PRODUCED AT ANNX-A., 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

ORAL ORDER

The captioned petition is filed seeking the following reliefs:

"Issue the writ of certiorari to quash the endorsement issued by the respondent No-2 dated 23-10-2025 bearing No-MBR-PS/LPT/61/2025 produced at ANNEXURE-A, The petitioner further prayed for to issue the writ of mandamus by directing the respondent No-1 superintend of police Davanagere to consider the complaint of the petitioner dated 08-10-2025 produced at ANNEXURE-B, by taking necessary action against the respondent No-2.

and the petitioner prayed for passing of such other relief or order under the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

2. The petitioner is before this Court feeling aggrieved by the endorsement issued by respondent No.2–police, wherein the complaint lodged by the petitioner has been treated as a civil dispute and consequently an NCR endorsement has been issued instead of registering a criminal case. The petitioner contends that he is the lawful owner and possessor of the property in question and that he has produced relevant title documents in support of his claim. It is further alleged that certain persons, including his cousin, have unlawfully trespassed into the property and have committed theft of areca nut grown on the land. According to the petitioner, despite disclosing ingredients of cognizable offences such as criminal trespass and theft in the complaint, the jurisdictional police have failed to register a First Information Report and have instead issued the impugned endorsement treating the matter as a civil dispute.

3. The petitioner also asserts that the action of the jurisdictional police is arbitrary and indicative of bias, particularly in view of the fact that a complaint lodged by the cousin in relation to the very same incident has been entertained and registered by the police, while the petitioner’s complaint has been relegated to the status of a non-cognizable report. In that view of the matter, the petitioner seeks intervention of this Court contending that the endorsement issued by respondent No.2 is illegal and unsustainable in law.

4. However, having regard to the nature of the allegations and the remedy available under criminal law, this Court is of the view that the petitioner has an efficacious alternative remedy of initiating proceedings by way of a private complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the jurisdictional Magistrate. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in N. Shivakumar and another vs. V. Ravi and another in W.P. No.446/2026 disposed of on 06.03.2026, has reiterated that where the police fail to register an FIR or treat the complaint as a non-cognizable case, the complainant is not left remediless and is at liberty to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate by filing a private complaint