Karnataka High Court To Quash Reckless Driving FIR Against Lamborghini Driver Subject To Undertaking Community Service

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (April 10) orally indicated that it will close criminal proceedings against the driver of a Lamborghini car booked for reckless driving, subject to him performing community service. 

The court was hearing a plea for quashing the FIR registered against the petitioner for reckless driving and retrofitted silencers.

At the outset, as the petitioner's counsel began submissions, Justice M. Nagaprasanna orally asked as to what community service is the petitioner willing to perform. 

To this the counsel said, "I have been shown as an offender. In this case I have not committed any offence as such. I am willing to undertake community service."

At this stage the court in a lighter vein orally said, "You'll go in your Lamborghini, sweep the streets and come back in a Lamborghini?".

With respect to the community service the petitioner's counsel suggested that the petitioner can teach about traffic signals in schools. The State's counsel suggested that the petitioner can plant saplings.

After hearing the matter for some time, the court orally said, "We will pass orders on this. I will quash the crime...Disposed". 

A detailed copy of the order is awaited. 

On January 23 the high court had stayed probe against the petitioner who has been accused of reckless driving and for retrofitting the silencer due to which the vehicle was stated to be "roaring" beyond the permissible decibel limit.

In this hearing the counsel for the petitioner had submitted that there was no accident adding, "On December 14, 2025 a series of vehicles travel from Mysore to Coorg on an expedition organized by the Lamborghini showroom in Bengaluru. 13 vehicles go. Im one of the last vehicles lagging behind. I drive according to prosecution a little fast".

A Suo Motu FIR was earlier registered, on the basis of a complaint made by a traffic sub inspector based on information that he saw on X Corp (platform).

The petitioner's counsel had referred to the documents to submit that he had paid fine for retrofitted silencer and as on date there was no such retrofitted silencer.

Case Title: Chiranth BR v. State of Karnataka & Anr

Case No: CRL.P 1011/2026