Karnataka High Court Declines PIL Seeking Circulars To Ensure Compliance With Lalita Kumari Ruling On Mandatory FIR

The Karnataka High Court has refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking a direction upon the State to issue circulars to enforce the judgment of Lalita Kumari v. State of UP, 2014(2) SCC 1.

When the plea came up for hearing before the principal bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha, the court observed that it cannot give omnibus directions to State authorities in pursuance of the PIL.

The petitioner specifically wanted the State and the Director General of Police to issue binding circulars on the following aspects:

1) Every Complaint received must be acknowledged immediately with unique receipts and time stamps, and online acknowledgement should also be sent when such information of the complainant is available

2) The original signed version of the complaint must be attached to the case diary without any scope for further alteration

3) Preliminary enquiry in cognisable offences if permissible, should be concluded within 7 days with a copy of the decision handed over to the complainant

4) Mediation should be voluntary without coercion and should not be a means to delay statutory action

5) CCTV footage of complaint handling areas in a police station must be preserved for 90 days, with copies available upon request as per law.

The petitioner in person also sought adequate directions for issuing Standard Operating Procedures to initiate proceedings against delinquent officers declining registration of FIRs or circumventing lawful procedure.

The petitioner, an advocate by profession, further submitted that the police officers try to resolve disputes by compelling parties to enter into mediation. If the complainant does not agree, the report is manipulated to reflect the complainant as an accused.

However, the court was of the opinion that the lacunae in strictly observing the dictum in Lalita Kumari cannot be rectified by making blanket directives to the state government or police department.

Though the petitioner argued that the police officials frequently dilute the complainant's case, withhold from completing the preliminary investigation promptly, and refuse to give complaint receipts, the Court was disinclined to pass an order in the petitioner's favour.

The Court added that if an FIR is not registered, there is a recourse to other remedies in BNSS; there is no requirement to issue blanket orders in this regard. The Court also refused to comment on the cases mentioned in the writ petition since they are live cases not yet disposed of.

Case Title: Mohammed Mujashsim vs State of Karnataka

Case No: WP 6093/2026