'Stop This Police Raj': Karnataka High Court Imposes ₹3 Lakh Personal Costs On IO & Superiors Over Illegal Arrest

The Karnataka High Court has come down heavily on the police for what it termed 'police raj', declaring the arrest of a witness in connection with a disputed Will as illegal and imposing exemplary costs of Rs 3,00,000 on the Investigating Officer, and his superior officers for dereliction of supervisory duty.

The petitioner-witness, who is accused no.2 in the FIR lodged in connection with the Will, was taken into custody two days prior to his date of appearance upon the issuance of Section 35(3) BNSS Notice.

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed,

“…The arrest of the petitioner which is on the face of it illegal is declared as such. The cost of such illegal arrest quantified at ₹3,00,000/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Only) is to be mulcted on the Investigating Officer and the superior officials who have shown dereliction of supervisory duty upon the Investigating Officer. The amount of cost to be paid to the petitioner shall not be from State exchequer as it is public money and the Investigating Officer has acted contrary to law and it shall be paid from his pocket or those who man the Police Station, i.e., the Whitefield Police Station…”, the court observed in its order.

When the Investigating Officer, who is a Sub Inspector, appeared in person before the court, the court chastised him for flouting the rigours of law:

“…Once you set the procedure in motion by issuing notice under Section 35(3), unless he displays non-cooperation, you cannot arrest. Don't you know the law? If it is an influential complainant, you will arrest?... I have been seeing this pattern of policemen; they take anyone into custody without any rhyme or reason. This should stop forthwith. And how do you stop it? There should be some deterrence. .. If the police are not stopped from entering civil cases, this is what is happening. Who are they to cast doubt on a will? That's why I said there is lawlessness here. Stop this police raj… will have to stop it with iron hands…”, the court orally said before dictating the order.

The Court also orally questioned the police's logic in leaving out the accused no.1, who is the beneficiary of the Will, and arresting the attesting witness instead:

"If you are a witness and accused No.1 is the beneficiary of the will, you leave him, and the witness to the will you take into custody—is there any semblance of fairness in this police action?... If you have succumbed to pressure-whose pressure? Why did you arrest? Is this a joke?He (IO) is a scapegoat. Somebody else is controlling him. Somebody else has directed him to arrest this man”, the court orally remarked, clearly disapproving the police actions.

However, the IO did not respond to the court's queries. Noting the lack of response from the IO, the court noted further as below in the order:

“…Once the procedural law is set into motion by issuance of notice under Section 35(3), the only circumstance where one can be taken into custody is on a display of non-cooperation by the accused….The time was yet to arrive, but the liberty of the petitioner was taken by the arrest of the petitioner who was taken into custody by the Investigating Officer who has no answer as to why he was taken into custody—whether he was pressurised by his official superiors and otherwise. There is no answer to the query by this Court why the procedure stipulated by the judgments of the Apex Court was not even noticed by the Investigating Officer or superiors in the said Police Station...”, the court pointed out.

About burdening the superior officials too with the liability for the illegal arrest of a citizen, the court noted the following reasons:

“…It is not only the Investigating Officer who is responsible for the atrocious act on their part of taking the liberty of citizens for granted. The entire Police Station is equally responsible. The Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station or the superior who mans the police station or the Assistant Commissioner of Police or the Deputy Commissioner of Police who has just led the Investigating Officer to behave in a manner blatantly contrary to law are equally responsible for their supervisory dereliction…This is not a case where the Court would show hands-off to such attitude of the Investigating Officer but mulct the Investigating Officer with exemplary costs apart from direction to initiate departmental enquiry against the Investigating Officer and official superiors who have permitted the Investigating Officer for dereliction of law….”

For context, in a crime registered by Whitefield Police Station two weeks ago, the petitioner was arraigned as accused no.2 for offences punishable under Sections 61 (criminal conspiracy), 338 (forgery of a Will or other specified documents), and 340(2) (fraudulent or dishonest use of forged document as genuine) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

The FIR stems from a three decades old Will which is disputed, and other documents relating to immovable property at Nallurahalli.

According to the petitioner, on August 25, 2026, the Investigating Officer of Whitefield Police Station issued a notice under Section 35(3) of the BNSS, 2023 [a police officer may issue a notice to a person to appear before him where arrest is not considered necessary], asking the petitioner, who is ana attesting witness, to appear before Whitefield Police Station at 11:00 AM on August 27.

However, in the early hours of August 25, the police officials allegedly came to the petitioner's residence, served the notice upon him, and immediately took him into custody, without even permitting him any opportunity to comply with the statutory notice.

The Court has now granted an interim stay of further proceedings in the crime insofar as the petitioner/accused No.2 is concerned. The stay shall not apply to accused No.1, i.e., the beneficiary of the Will, the court clarified.

“The issue is on the face of it purely civil in nature. Admittedly, the role of the petitioner is that of a witness to a Will. This is not a matter for the police to interfere now unless criminality is projected…It is a settled proposition of law that a witness to an instrument cannot be hauled for investigation, as laid down by plethora of judgments rendered by this Court and the apex court…In that light, there shall be an interim order of stay qua the petitioner. It would not be made applicable to accused No.1.”, the court added.

Case Title: Mr. K.N. Mohan Reddy v. State of Karnataka & Another

Case No: Crl P: 13117/2026