Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 89 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 128 Nominal CitationsNaveen R & Anr. v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 89Geetha R v/s State of Karnataka & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 90Manjappa v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 91State v/s Ashraf @ Ballary Ashraf & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 92Mohammed Haris Nalapad v/s State By SGWF Post P.S. (RPF)...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 89 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 128
Nominal Citations
Naveen R & Anr. v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 89
Geetha R v/s State of Karnataka & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 90
Manjappa v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 91
State v/s Ashraf @ Ballary Ashraf & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 92
Mohammed Haris Nalapad v/s State By SGWF Post P.S. (RPF) 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 93
D A Srinivas v/s CBI 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 94
State of Karnataka v/s Pavithra Gowda & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 95
X v/s State 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 96
X & Anr. v/s Chief Registrar Births and Deaths Bengaluru & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 97
State of Karnataka v/s Deepak Haldar & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 98
Naseer Ahmed v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 99
Mohammed Mujashsim v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 100
Emeka James Iwoba @ Austin Noso Iwoba & Anr v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 101
X v. State & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 102
M/S. ND Developers Private Ltd & Ors. v. Ritesh Raushan, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 103
Binoj P J v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 104
K. Ganesh & Anr. v. Govind Reddy & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 105
Nishchay Babu Arkalgud & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 106
Shri Mahesh v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 107
Directorate OF Enforcement v. ZO Pvt. Ltd, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 108
X v. Z, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 109
Shri V. Sivaprasad Reddy v. Smt Pillamma, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 110
Y v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 111
Income Tax Officer and CPIO v. Smt. Gulsanober Bano Zafar Ali Ansari and another, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
Smt. Sarbhanu Khatoon v. State of Karnataka., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 113
Chethan. S v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 114
M/S. Reward360 Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 115
Smt. Laxmi Nagappa Kittur v. The Registrar General & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 116
U v. V, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 117
Bangalore Hotels Association v. Union of India., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 118
Mantri Tranquil Apartments Owners Association & Anr. v. BBMP & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 119
State of Karnataka v. Prashanth N. @ Prashanth Nataraj, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 120
The State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Nandakishore Bagare, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 121
Sri Sri Ravi Shankar v. State of Karnataka & Anr ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 122
V Chittibabu v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 123
Hi Car Care v. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 124
M N Ramesh & Anr. v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 125
Sri Gopal Joshi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 126
Neeraj Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 127
Sri Suri Payala v. Government of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 128
Judgments/Orders
Case title: Naveen R & Anr. v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.
WRIT PETITION NO. 4513 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 89
The Karnataka High Court recently directed the police to permit a trade union to use loudspeakers for creating awareness about the organisation of a protest subject to certain conditions, observing that an awareness campaign is a facet of democratic process which cannot be restricted unreasonably.
The court was hearing a plea moved by Centre for Indian Trade Unions and its President challenging a 04.02.2026 endorsement by the police rejecting the Union's application to use loudspeakers on two autorickshaws to create awareness amongst the residents of Malleshwaram, Bengaluru about a protest organised by the Union.
Case title: Geetha R v/s State of Karnataka & Ors.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6405 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 90
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (February 27) granted parole 3-day emergency parole to a visually disabled man–convicted for various offences including kidnapping and sentenced to life, to enable him to attend his sister's wedding functions.
The plea moved by the convict's mother stated that her son has 77% permanent visual disability (blindness) which has been certified by a hospital and he has also been issued a Unique Disability Identity Card by Government of India. The plea further stated that the convict's sister has locomotor disability and that various customary and matrimonial ceremonies connected with her marriage are scheduled to be conducted from 25.02.2026 to 01.03.2026.
Case title: Manjappa v/s State of Karnataka
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.968 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 91
The Karnataka High Court has recently observed that mere delay in lodging the complaint by the complainant cannot be a ground to acquit the accused in a murder case, as the immediate concern of the victim's family would be save the injured instead of approaching the police.
In doing so the court upheld a trial court order convicting a man for murder and sentencing him to life, who had been booked for assaulting the deceased with with a wooden log on his, pursuant to which he succumbed to his injuries during treatment in the hospital.
Case title: State v/s Ashraf @ Ballary Ashraf & Ors.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1105 OF 2017, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.420 OF 2017
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 92
The Karnataka High Court recently upheld a trial court order which had acquitted eight men accused of rioting and attempt to murder persons inside a mosque who were offering prayers, observing that there was no material available against the accused persons.
A division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T in its order noted:
"Though PWs.1 and 2 have deposed regarding intention to take away their life, but they have sustained only one injury. If accused No.1 really had intended to commit the murder, he would have inflicted more number of injuries, but PWs.1 and 2 have sustained only one injury. It is also important to note that the Court has to take note of material contradictions in the evidence of other eyewitnesses and they have also spoken that others have also assaulted with stones, however, there are no stone injuries either on PWs.1 and 2.
Hence, the evidence of other witnesses cannot be believed with regard to the injuries caused by others with stones and also it is clear that stones were found outside the Masjid and not inside the Masjid. In order to connect accused Nos.2 and 3, specific allegation is made that both of them have conspired, but there is no direct evidence with regard to conspiracy and conspiracy would be proved only by placing on record the circumstantial evidence. In order to substantiate the same, no material is placed before the Court either oral evidence, or documentary evidence. Hence, the trial Court, having taken note of the fact that there is no material available against accused Nos.2 to 9, rightly acquitted them".
Case title: Mohammed Haris Nalapad v/s State By SGWF Post P.S. (RPF)
WRIT PETITION NO. 32 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 93
The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings lodged against Congress leader Mohammed Haris Nalapad who was booked in 2022 for squatting infront of a train at a station in Bengaluru resulting in its detention, noting that none of the ingredients alleged were made out.
The petitioner had approached the high court against a trial court order taking cognizance of offences in an FIR registered under Sections 145(c)(If any person in any railway carriage or upon any part of a railway wilfully or without excuse interferes with any amenity provided by the railway administration so as to affect the comfortable travel of any passenger he may be imprisoned for a term extendable to six months), 147(Trespass and refusal to desist from trespass), 154 (Endangering safety of persons travelling by railway by rash or negligent act or omission) and 174(a) (Obstructing running of train, etc) of the Railways Act.
Case title: D A Srinivas v/s CBI
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 961 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 94
The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to DA Srinivas, son of late former MP D.K. Adikesavulu, who has been booked in a case registered by the CBI over alleged counterfeiting and forgery of government stamps and documents.
The case was lodged after a complaint was filed by Sub-Registrar, Gandhinagar alleging that he came to know through a newspaper report that forged documents were prepared using a machine which belongs to his office and 08 documents of Yelahanka Sub-Registrar Office, 09 documents of Shivajinagar Sub-Registrar Office and 05 documents of Kengeri Sub-Registrar Office were prepared while using forged seal and signature of his office officials.
Case title: State of Karnataka v/s Pavithra Gowda & Others
WP 1421/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 95
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (March 4) laid down guidelines on providing home-cooked food to undertrials and prisoners observing that protection of human dignity does not cease at the gates of prison.
The court passed the order while setting aside a trial court order which had permitted home-cooked food for actress Pavithra Gowda, Nagaraju R and Lakshman M–presently facing trial in the Renukaswamy Murder case, after finding that before granting such permission, prior medical examination of the accused persons had not been conducted.
Case title: X v/s State
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 17299 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 96
The Karnataka High Court refused to grant the custody of a girl to her mother after noting that there were "prima facie" allegations against the mother of forcing her into prostitution.
Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order said:
"The issue in the lis does not concern the merit of the crime or the charge sheet so filed by the State. The statement of the victim and the statement of others would prima facie indicate that the mother had forced the daughter to prostitution. Learned Additional State Public Prosecutor is right in contending that when a child is rescued from a prostitution racket and is in the custody of the State or the Child Welfare Home, but when there are allegations against the mother that she is indulging in the act of using her daughter for the purpose of prostitution, the girl should not be handed over to the custody of the mother.
It is un-understandable as to how the mother is left while filing the charge sheet, notwithstanding the fact that there is a lurking suspicion that she has indulged in forcing her daughter for prostitution albeit, prima facie, and how could the mother be left off while filing the charge sheet".
Case title: X & Anr. v/s Chief Registrar Births and Deaths Bengaluru & Anr.
WRIT PETITION NO. 33465 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 97
The Karnataka High Court has held that alteration of child's surname to reflect the mother's lineage/family name does not substantially affect the father's rights specially when the mother is the sole caregiver and where the father is not involved in the child's life.
The court was hearing plea by a minor girl whose parents were in a live-in relationship, seeking a direction to the state authorities to change her name which reflected her father's surname, to her mother's surname in her birth certificate.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that the case did not involve deletion of the father's name as the father and that the statutory acknowledgment of paternity remains untouched as his name continues to be reflected in the birth certificate.
Case title: State of Karnataka v/s Deepak Haldar & Ors.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1225 OF 2016
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 98
The Karnataka High Court has suggested to the State government to issue guidelines concerning background verification, identity confirmation or registration of inter-state migrant workers, while hearing a case wherein five persons stated to be migrant workers were accused of a triple murder.
In doing so the court also emphasized need for preventive safeguards through strict enforcement of existing labour and criminal regulatory mechanisms as well as a introduction of mandatory police verification mechanism before engaging workers who reside within private premises. The court however also emphasized while strengthening the mechanism migrant workers must not be stigmatized calling for a balanced approach.
Case title: Naseer Ahmed v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 14932 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 99
The Karnataka High Court quashed offence of voluntarily causing simple hurt lodged against Congress leader Naseer Ahmed accused of assaulting former MLA K Sudhakar in the Legislative Assembly in 2019.
It was alleged that by the complainant Amruthesh NP that on 10.07.2019 in front of the Office of Minister K.J. George and the Speaker of Vidhana Soudha, while MLA K Sudhakar was proceeding to submit his resignation to the Speaker, some Members of the Legislative Council dragged K Sudhakar to the Chambers of the Minister and had assaulted him.
Case title: Mohammed Mujashsim vs State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 6093/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 100
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 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: Emeka James Iwoba @ Austin Noso Iwoba & Anr v State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No.11347 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 101
In an NDPS case concerning two Nigerian nationals, the Karnataka High Court has said that Article 22 of the Constitution applies to Indian nationals and Foreign nationals alike, since the expression 'no person' has been used in the Article.
“….The constitutional guarantee does not evaporate at the border nor does it diminish by reason of nationality, except an enemy alien as defined under Article 22(3)(a) which expressly makes the provision inapplicable to an enemy alien, otherwise, a foreigner within the territory of India though, subject to the regulatory regime governing entry and stay is nevertheless, entitled to the procedural safeguards mandated by Article 22…”, the High Court observed.
The Nigerian nationals were accused of possessing narcotics worth Rs 50 lakhs meant to be sold to students and software professionals in Bengaluru. During the investigation, they were found to have multiple passports and expired visas.
Case title: X v/s State & Anr
Case No: WP No.35036 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 102
Observing that the criminal justice system cannot be made a remedy for the emotional turmoil of failed relationships, the Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR U/s 69 and 115(2) of BNS arising from a live-in relationship in Ireland.
“…. If every broken relationship were to be clothed in the garb of criminality, the Courts would transform into forums of personal vendetta, rather than forums of justice…”, the court opined while absolving the petitioner male from the continuing criminal prosecution.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna also observed that if the sexual intercourse did not stem from 'deceit from inception', it would be unjust to 'criminalise heartbreak'.
Case Title: M/S. ND Developers Private Ltd & Ors. v. Ritesh Raushan
Case No: Criminal Petition No.11207 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 103
When the drawer of the cheque could not have exercised real control or authority upon the relevant bank account on which a cheque is drawn, its dishonour would not warrant proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, held the Karnataka High Court.
The court clarified that, in order to attract S.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused should have control over the account when the cheque becomes due for presentation. The drawer of the cheque can't be said to possess authority or control over an account if there is a live debit freeze on it.
Case Title: Binoj P J v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 17142 Of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 104
Iterating the precedents laid down by the apex court, the Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea to quash the criminal proceedings against a 38-year-old man who allegedly stored sexually exploitative content of children in his mobile phone.
“…it is not transmission alone, but even storage of child pornographic content which has the capacity of being transmitted, which would become an offence under Section 15 of the POCSO Act”, the single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna noted in the order after hearing the criminal petition.
When done with the intention of transmitting or disseminating the stored abusive content, such act falls within the ambit of an 'inchoate' offence and Section 15 of the POCSO Act would spring into action even without actual transmission or sharing of such content, the single judge bench noted by relying on apex court decision in Just Rights For Children Alliance v. S. Harish, 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 728.
Case Title: K. Ganesh & Anr. vs. Govind Reddy & Ors.
Case Number: RP No. 587 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 105
Emphatically censuring a lawyer's attempt to 'browbeat' and 'threaten' the court to pass favourable orders on the guise of a review petition, the Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 25000/- before dismissing the said petition as 'vexatious' and 'frivolous'.
“…The Court cannot satisfy both parties; one party obviously being dissatisfied and the Advocate - Sri.B.M.Arun could not have stepped into the shoes of the client to express his dissatisfaction as if it is a personal case and ought not to have addressed the Court in the conduct disrespecting the Court and harming dignity and decorum of the Court”, the bench sitting at Dharwad opined that the lawyer had crossed a line in the process of canvassing arguments for his clients.
Case Title: Nishchay Babu Arkalgud & Anr. vs. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 5968 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 106
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered against the online gold platform Jar Gold and its directors for offences under Sections 21(1) and 21(2) of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019 (BUDS Act).
The single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while dismissing the application filed by Jar Gold Retail Private Limited and its Director Nishchay Babu Arkalgud, noted that the economic substance of a transaction, and not its 'cosmetic garb', will determine whether it contravenes the law.
"…Law is concerned not with the cosmetic garb in which a transaction is clothed, but with its intrinsic character and its economic substance," , the court reflected on the ever-changing landscape of modern financial crimes in the online realm.
Case Title: Shri Mahesh v. State of Karnataka & Ors
Case No: WP No. 30006 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 107
The Karnataka High Court has called for the State's records to verify the implementation of a Standard Operating Procedure devised earlier this year to deal with the larger systemic issues in tracing the missing persons.
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindraj addressed the bigger picture of untraceable disappearances while hearing the specific grievance about a missing person's FIR marked 'dormant' in 2022 without progress:
The court has now asked the State to submit a 'comprehensive compliance report' regarding the implementation of Standing Order 1054, which deals with a procedure to be followed on receipt of information about missing children/persons, by 10th April.
Entire Funds In Account Can't Be Presumed 'Proceeds Of Crime': Karnataka High Court In WinZO Case
Case Title: Directorate OF Enforcement v. ZO Pvt. Ltd
Case No: Writ Appeal No. 492 Of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 108
Allowing the WinZO group to make the payments to its employees from the company account frozen after money laundering allegations, the Karnataka High Court has held that the entire amount in the accounts of WinZO and its subsidiaries cannot be deemed as 'proceeds of crime'.
“…Apex Court has clearly held that the proceeds of crime have to be linked to a predicate offence and it is only such property which is derived or obtained directly or indirectly as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence that can be regarded as 'proceeds of crime”, the Division Bench observed while referring to Vijay Madanlal Chaudhary's case.
Case Title: X v. Z
Case No: Crl. P No 470/ 2019, Crl P. No. 7922 OF 2018 & Crl. P No. 6031 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 109
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed criminal proceedings against a 73-year-old husband, his alleged second wife, and his own children, holding that mere living in an 'illegal relationship' does not constitute marriage for the purpose of Section 494 IPC (marrying again during the lifetime of spouse).
“…it was incumbent upon the complainant [wife] to plead and prove that accused No.1 had married accused No.4. Mere living in a relationship, does not amount to a marriage and therefore, an offence under Section 494 of IPC was not made out by the complainant…”, the bench sitting at Bengaluru also clarified that the trial court's order of taking cognisance against the accused was not legally sound.
Case Title: Y v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: Crl. P No 470/ 2019, Crl P. No. 7922 OF 2018 & Crl. P No. 6031 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 110
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a Child Marriage case against the groom as well as the families of the groom and the minor girl, by underscoring that ignorance of law or factum of a cordial marital relationship would not legalise the wrong already committed.
“Parents who ought to bless their daughters with encouragement, education and empowerment, instead bless them with premature matrimony. If such conduct were to receive judicial indulgence, the eradication of child marriage would remain an illusive aspiration…”, the court strongly remarked.
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna also warned that the liability for facilitating child marriages wouldn't be confined to the respective families or relatives alone. Even the temple and the officiating priests of such a marriage could be brought under the sweep of law. Similarly, even a marriage hall and its management may face the rigours of law for conducting child marriages, the court explained.
Case Title: Shri V. Sivaprasad Reddy v. Smt Pillamma
Case No: RFA 1796/2012
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 111
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that an appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure would lie only when the probate court ventures to examine beyond the testamentary rights and determines proprietary civil rights of the parties involved.
“…where the probate court travels beyond the statutory limits of testamentary jurisdiction and undertakes a comprehensive adjudication of civil proprietary rights by interpreting title documents, determining the effect of partition, adjudicating possession or declaring ownership of the property, the character of the adjudication changes….”, the court observed.
Case title: Income Tax Officer and CPIO v. Smt. Gulsanober Bano Zafar Ali Ansari and another
Case No: Writ Petition No.34625 of 2019
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 112
The Karnataka High Court has recently issued uniform, gender neutral, guidelines to be followed in 'maintenance' cases to apply for the financial records of their spouse, instead of resorting to the RTI Act.
The court added that the guidelines issued will apply to all Magistrate Courts, Family Courts, Sessions Courts and Appellate Courts within the State of Karnataka adjudicating maintenance/alimony proceedings.
The guidelines would also apply squarely to all designated officers and authorities of the Income Tax Department within the court's jurisdiction.
Case title: Smt. Sarbhanu Khatoon v. State of Karnataka
Case No: Crl P. 2317/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 113
The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to a 25-year-old woman, a resident of West Bengal, who was arrested for shouting the slogan 'Jai Bangla' during a demolition drive in Bengaluru this January.
The single judge bench of Justice S.Rachaiah noted that the woman had uttered 'Jai Bharath Mata Ki Jai' thrice after uttering 'Jai Bangla' once. A person had instigated the woman to shout 'Jai Bharath Mata Ki Jai' at first, the court observed in the bail order pronounced on 11th March.
Case Title: Chethan. S v. Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation & Ors.
Case No: Writ Appeal No.2 Of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 114
The Karnataka High Court has observed that the Chief Minister's Office (CMO) should not directly entertain or interfere in the transfer and posting of government and public undertaking employees, while remarking that the 'highest authority of the State' has more important duties to perform.
A division Bench of Justice D.K Singh and Justice T.M Nadaf held that the appellant employee's current posting should not be disturbed until the next transfer season in April. Even in the case of transfer, the authorities should comply with the applicable transfer rules and policy, the court added.
“We are therefore, of the opinion that no request for transfer and posting should be entertained by the Office of the Hon'ble Chief Minister directly. The matter should end at the level of the department itself. Hon'ble Chief Minister has better and more important work to perform than interfering with the transfers and postings of the employees of the State Government and Government undertakings”, the court remarked that a copy of the order should also be sent to the Chief Minister's Office.
Case title: M/S. Reward360 Global Services Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: Criminal Petition No.9356 Of 2025 C/W Criminal Petition No.9844 Of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 115
Granting interim custody of seized items to the accused hacker in the Reward360 cyber fraud case, the Karnataka High Court has held that valuable articles cannot be kept idle in police custody for an unduly long period merely because there are 'rival claims' over their ownership.
Justice Mohammad Nawaz set aside a Magistrate Court order that had rejected applications for interim custody filed by both the accused[hacker] and the de facto complainant [Reward360].
Case Title: Smt. Laxmi Nagappa Kittur v. The Registrar General & Ors.
Case No: WA 100548/2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 116
The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order which had held that a married daughter living in her husband's home cannot seek compassionate appointment on the ground of her father's death.
In doing so, the court said that compassionate appointment aims to provide relief for 'immediate financial distress' to a 'family in crisis' following the death of an employee.
The court was hearing a woman's appeal seeking compassionate appointment after father's death. Her writ petition had been rejected by the single judge who had held that appellant was not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground as she was a married daughter and had not made out grounds for appointment on compassionate ground.
Case title: U v. V
Case No: Writ Petition No. 25901 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 117
In a child custody battle, the Karnataka High Court has recently held that the 'ordinary residence' of the child will be the determining factor to decide the applicable jurisdiction. The High Court underscored that though the father retains his right to seek custody, he must do so in the U.S. Courts where the child ordinarily resides.
Asking the father to return the custody of his minor son to the mother in the United States, the court opined that uprooting a child from their natural, social and academic environment would be against the 'welfare of the minor' by relying on Lahari Sakhamuri v. Sobhan Kodali, (2019) 7 SCC 311.
Case Title: Bangalore Hotels Association v. Union of India.
Case No: WP 8968/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 118
The Karnataka High Court, on Monday, declined to issue directions to the government over the ongoing commercial LPG shortage with regard to the hotel industry. It reasoned that constitutional courts are not equipped to monitor evolving global energy crises or interfere in the executive's distribution policies.
The single-judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum noted that it can't venture into the executive domain when the issue at hand involves complex international conflicts, supply chain problems and diplomatic deadlocks.
Case Title: Mantri Tranquil Apartments Owners Association & Anr. v. BBMP & Ors.
Case No: WP No. 40299 of 2014 (C/W WP No. 47937 of 2019)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 119
Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a batch of petitions challenging notices issued by the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) between 2014 and 2019 for the removal of encroachments put up over storm water drains in the city's Gubbalala area in the guise of land development.
The petitions were filed by Mantri Developers, its Apartment Owners Association and Royal Palms Residents Welfare Association at Gubbalala who had sought a direction to the municipality not to interfere with their occupation and not to demolish the residential complex.
A Single Bench of Justice R. Nataraj held that once a water body or drain is vested in the State under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, its status cannot be 'divested' merely because a planning authority like the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA) failed to reflect it in a Master Plan.
Case Title: State of Karnataka v. Prashanth N. @ Prashanth Nataraj
Case No: CRL.A No. 1971 of 2018
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar)120
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State's Health and Home Secretaries to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the District Surgeon of Wenlock Hospital and a Police Circle Inspector for 'serious lapses' in reporting and investigating a murder that occurred within hospital premises in 2013.
While upholding the acquittal of the accused by a Mangalore Sessions Court in 2017, a Division Bench comprising Justice H.P. Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T expressed shock that despite a police outpost being present within the hospital and officers arriving at the scene shortly after the initial assault, no FIR was registered for over 13 hours.
Case Title: The State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Nandakishore Bagare
Case No: Writ Appeal No. 200277 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 121
The Karnataka High Court has held that the State Government, as the single largest litigant before constitutional courts, bears a 'corresponding responsibility' to conduct its legal affairs with institutional accountability. The court added that the government cannot expect preferential treatment regarding the law of limitation.
“…The Government cannot take advantage of bureaucratic procedures and routine file movement as a ground to seek condonation of delay...The expression “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must be interpreted strictly, and courts cannot condone delay merely on equitable considerations…”, the court observed, adding that the reasoning in the State's affidavit only reflected 'bureaucratic processing of the file at a leisurely administrative pace'.
Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Sri Sri Ravi Shankar In Alleged Land Encroachment Case
Case Title: Sri Sri Ravi Shankar AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WP 143/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 122
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (March 25) quashed an FIR registered against spiritual guru Sri Sri Ravishankar over alleged land encroachment in Bengaluru.
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna however clarified that none of the observations made in the course of the order would be applicable to other accused or pending proceedings before any other forums.
The development comes in a plea moved by the spiritual guru challenging the FIR. On January 13, the Court had stayed the investigation against him.
Case Title: V Chittibabu v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: WP 8163/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 123
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (March 25) directed pubs and breweries in Bengaluru to initiate rigorous age verification protocols preferably at the entry of the premises.
In doing so the court refused to quash criminal proceedings against the licensee of a Brewery in the city wherein a teenager had allegedly consumed alcohol and later committed suicide.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, while pronouncing the order said that the age verification can be carried out through Aadhar or any other valid identification 'at the threshold of entry'.
Karnataka High Court Slams Unlawful Seizure Of Lamborghini, Directs Action Against RTO Officer
Case Title: Hi Car Care v. State of Karnataka & Ors
Case No: Crl P.2309/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar)124
While quashing an FIR in a high-profile fraud and forgery proceeding that revolves around the registration of a Lamborghini Evo with the RTO, the Karnataka High Court has taken strong exception to the conduct of a Senior Motor Vehicles Inspector who seized the said vehicle unlawfully.
Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while ordering the release of the vehicle in custody within a week, has asked the state to initiate a departmental enquiry against the erring motor vehicles inspector.
The court has quashed the FIR qua the petitioner while also taking note of some other aspects regarding the effacement of the car in RTO office. The plea was filed by Hi Car Care, represented by its Proprietor J. Ramakrishnaiah, who owns the luxury car.
'Procedural Harakiri': Karnataka High Court Criticizes Magistrate For Closing Private Complaint In Absence Of S.175(3) BNSS Order Directing FIR
Case Title: M N Ramesh & Anr. v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 14239/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 125
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (March 27) expressed its disapproval at a magistrate's order which closed a private complaint, after noting that the police had instead of filing a report as called for by the magistrate court had gone ahead and filed a cheating FIR pursuant to which the complaint was closed.
In doing so the court quashed the FIR and the trial court order, remarking that there was "procedural harakiri" which had occurred in the matter.
The high court set aside the trial court order noting that there was "no order for reference for registration of a crime" by the magistrate and without such an order for reference under Section 175(3) the crime was registered and accepted by magistrate and the private complaint was itself closed.
Case Title: Sri Gopal Joshi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 28739 of 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 126
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the cheating case filed by the wife of a former JD(S) MLA against Gopal Joshi- the estranged brother of Union Minister Prahlad Joshi-and his son, holding that the ₹2 crore dispute over an election ticket was a civil matter of money recovery, not a criminal offence.
The single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna noted in the order as follows:
“…The issue, in the case at hand, is a transaction which has gone wrong. Money allegedly changed hands. Therefore, it was purely for the purpose of recovery of money criminal proceedings are set into motion, which the Apex Court deprecated…”.
Case Title: Neeraj Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 36250 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 127
Criticising the unlawful seizure of a Mercedes vehicle and subsequent cancellation of its registration during the pendency of a writ petition against the seizure, the Karnataka High Court has come down on the state's RTO Department for 'flagrant disregard for court proceedings'. The court has directed the authority to restore the registration of the Mercedes-AMG G 63 vehicle in question.
The single judge bench of Justice Jyoti M has quashed the Investigation Report of Vehicle's seizure and the order of cancellation of the Registration Certificate as untenable in law. In June 2025, a special checking squad under the RTO had taken possession of the vehicle parked on the roadside, claiming non-payment of sufficient taxes as a reason.
Case Title: Sri Suri Payala v. Government of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 3570 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 128
The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a public interest litigation filed to quash the appointment of several MLAs (Member of Legislative Assembly) and MLCs (Member of Legislative Council) to various Boards and Corporations with cabinet rank and pecuniary benefits similar to that of ministers.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha held that such appointees are not 'Ministers' within the meaning of Article 164(1A) of the Constitution.
The court held that the 15 per cent ceiling on the number of MLAs/MLCs that can be included in the council of ministers, though rigid, does not extend to statutory body/board appointments. The court clarified that such appointees, even if they receive similar salary and cabinet rank perks as those of the ministers, are not to be counted as a part of the council of ministers per se.