N Thippanna Suppliers vs. The Superintendent Of Police
Original PDF →Facts
The petitioner, N. Thippanna Suppliers, represented by its proprietor B. Earanna, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to the Superintendent of Police, Bellary District, to register an FIR based on a complaint dated June 19, 2025. The petitioner, who runs a business supplying shamiyana, flower decoration, lighting, and sound systems, alleged interference and threats from respondents No. 3 and 4, who are described as distant relatives. The petitioner claims these relatives secured GST numbers and are interfering with her business operations, creating untoward incidents, and threatening her staff. The complaint was initially sent to the Siruguppa Police Station but was allegedly not received, leading to the petitioner sending it via registered post. The petitioner's counsel argued that the police authorities were not acting in accordance with the law by failing to register the FIR, causing injustice and hardship.
Held
The Court held that it would not delve into the merits of the dispute to determine the rightful ownership or the legality of the actions of respondents No. 3 and 4, as such matters are for civil adjudication. However, the Court emphasized that once a complaint is lodged with the police, it becomes their duty to act in accordance with the law. The police authorities are required to examine the complaint to ascertain if a cognizable offense is made out. If a cognizable offense is disclosed, they must register a complaint and initiate appropriate action as per the procedure laid down by the Supreme Court in Lalitha Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh. The Court directed the respondent-authorities to consider the complaint lodged by the complainant and act in accordance with the law, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The petition was disposed of with these directions.
Key Issues
1. Whether the police authorities are legally obligated to register an FIR on the complaint lodged by the petitioner, considering the nature of the dispute and the arguments presented by both sides? (Question of law and mixed fact and law, concerning the duty to register an FIR under the Code of Criminal Procedure). Petitioner's Arguments: The petitioner contended that the respondents No. 3 and 4 were interfering with her business, threatening her laborers, and creating disturbances, thus posing a threat to her life and business. The inaction of the police in registering an FIR on her complaint caused injustice and hardship, necessitating a writ of mandamus. Revenue/State's Arguments: The learned AGA argued that the matter appeared to be of a civil nature, as the petitioner herself admitted that respondents No. 3 and 4 are relatives who have secured GST numbers and are interfering with the business. The AGA contended that police interference in civil matters is not their domain. However, the AGA also stated that if a cognizable offense is made out from the complaint, the respondents would take action in accordance with the law. It was also noted that a civil suit has been filed against respondents No. 3 and 4.
Sections Cited
None explicitly discussed or named in the judgment, beyond general reference to FIR registration and cognizable offenses.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR)
Petitioner is the resident of Shiruguppa Town, he has been in supplying of Shamiyana and flower decoration and lightings and sound systems equipments on rental basis from several years. Petitioner has made huge investment in her business, which was earlier conducted by her husband. Due to ill-health of her husband, she is continuing the said business.
Respondents No.3 and 4 being far relatives of the petitioner were unemployed and did not have any avocation are interfering with the day to day affairs of running her business. Hence, due to the interference by respondents No.3 and 4, petitioner had filed a complaint to the Shiruguppa Police, but the same was not received by respondent No.2/Police and hence the petitioner sent the complaint by registered post.
It is the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent/Police are not acting in accordance with law and not registering the complaint by way of FIR on the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8476 basis of the complaint lodged by the petitioner. It is also the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents No.3 and 4 are trying to threaten the labours and so also they are creating untoward incidents by coming to the shop intoxicated. Therefore, there is a threat for the life of petitioner and her business. The inaction of respondents No.1 and 2, Police authorities in not registering the complaint has caused injustice and hardship to the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner has filed the present petition for mandamus to 1st respondent to register the FIR on complaint filed by the petitioner.
Per Contra, the learned AGA contends that on the basis of the petition filed and complaint so lodged by the petitioner, it appears that the matter is of civil in nature as the petitioner herself has admitted that respondents No.3 and 4 are her far of relatives, who have secured some GST numbers and are coming and interfering with the business of the petitioner. It is contended by learned AGA that interference by the Police in such matters would be detrimental to the Police that they are interfering in the civil matters, which is not the domain of the HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8476 Police authority. Nevertheless, he contends that if there is any cognizable offence made out on the basis of complaint the respondent would take action in accordance with law.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the respondent/State.
It is apparent from the records that the petitioner is a lady, who is conducting business activities, which was earlier run by her husband, due to ill-health of her husband, she is continuing the business activities. Even according to the averments made in the petition, respondents No.3 and 4 are shown to be far relatives, who have secured the some GST numbers and cause title of the petition depicts that the petitioner is a proprietary firm represented by Proprietor- B.Earanna. The complaint is lodged by the wife of the proprietor-B-Earanna.
It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments that a civil suit has been filed against respondent Nos.3 and 4 which is pending adjudication. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8476
In matters like this, this Court would not be in a position to decide the rights of the parties as to, whether the petitioner is the rightful owner or respondent Nos.3 and 4 have any right or authority to go into the established premises of the petitioner and whether they have committed any civil wrong of illegal acts, which would amount to cognizable offence.
Be that as it may. Without adverting to any of these merits, once the complainant, acting on behalf of the petitioner, has lodged the complaint before the police station, it becomes the duty of the police authority to act in accordance with law by taking into consideration whether there is any cognizable offence made out and if any such offence is made out, to register a complaint and initiate suitable action in accordance with law. The respondent-Authorities will have to follow the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lalitha Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh and others1 to appreciate the complaint so registered by the complainant, who is none other than the wife of the proprietor-B. Earanna.
1 (2014) 2 SCC 1 HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:8476
Accordingly, I pass the following ORDER i. This petition is disposed of. ii. The respondent-authorities shall consider the complaint so lodged by the complainant, who is none other than the wife of the petitioner and act in accordance with law. iii. No opinion is expressed by this Court. (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE
CKK, Kmv from para 7 till end CT-MCK
Reproduced from the public record of the Karnataka High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.