Karnataka High Court Quarterly Digest: January – March 2026 [Citations 01 - 128]

Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 1 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 128

Nominal Index

M/s Krazybee Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Additional Director, DGGI, BZU 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 1

M/s Dodla Dairy Limited v. The Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 2

Sri Akram Pasha v. Senior Intelligence Officer 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 3

M/s Excelpoint Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v/s Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I) 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 4

Mrs. Ivy Miller Chahal v/s Union of India & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 5

Parisons Foods Private Limited v/sThe Commissioner of Customs 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 6

M/S DRN Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v/s Union of India & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 7

Asha G v/s State of Karnataka & ANR. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 8

Abuzar Ahmed & Others v/s State of Karnataka & Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 9

Amol Chandra Das v/s NIA 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 10

Chandrika v/s Special Land Acquisition Officer-I & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 11

Sujith Sudhakaran v/s Lalu Jacob Mammen 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 12

K Keshava v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 13

M/s Shri Venkateshwara Minerals v State of Karnataka and Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 14

XXXX v/s State of Karnataka and Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 15

Shri Mohammadrafi and Anr. v/s Bandenawaz and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 16

Sri Rajeev Gowda BV v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 17

Sri Natesh Kumar v/s The State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 18

ANI Technologies Private Limited v/s State of Karnataka and batch 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 19

Veeramarannasamy Devarajeerrnoddara Kattada Seva Samithi and Anr. v/s State of Karnataka and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 20

Rudresh @ Rudraiah v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 21

Shahid Khan v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 22

Reeshaan Thajuddin Sheikh v/s NIA 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 23

Faisal Ulla Sharif @ Faisal Ulla Shariff v/s State of Karnataka and Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 24

Shri Rukmanna v/s The Deputy Commissioner and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 25

Dyamappa v/s Smt. Bhimavva Basavantappa Kadannavar and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 26

The State v/s Abu Salman Saifan Sab Thambe and Another 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 27

Rajanna D @ Raju v/s State and Another 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 28

The State by Sub-Inspector of Police v/s Sri Nagesh SV and connected petition 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 29

Sri Sirajuddin v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 30

Prof Niranjana v/s State & Another 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 31

Dr. BR Ambedkar Youth Social and Cultural Welfare Trust v/s Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 32

X v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 33

Shri Jayant Jadhav Anr. v/s Principal Secretary & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 34

State of Karnataka v/s Manikanta @ Manu & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 35

Zo Pvt Ltd/. v/s Directorate of Enforcement 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 36

Hindu Sammelana Samithi v/s The Commissioner of Police Belagavi and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 37

Mohan v/s The State of Karnataka and batch 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 38

Mr Irfan Nasir @ Irfi v/s The NIA 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 39

The Registrar General v/s Jayban Adivasi @ Jay Singh and Others and batch 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 40

X v/s Y 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 41

Sri Venkataiah v/s The State of Karnataka & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 42

NIA v/s Md. Shahbaz @ Zulfikar @ Guddu and batch 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 43

Sandeep and Others v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 44

Mukram Khan & Anr. v/s The State of Karnataka & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 45

IIFL Finance Ltd. v/s State of Karnataka & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 46

Devaraj HD v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 47

Kallalinga E Hoogar v/s Sri Siddaramaiah and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 48

Mohammed Manik Hussain @ Mohammed Manik v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 49

State of Karnataka v/s Smt. Prema & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 50

Mrs. Estrida Lucy Janet Vaz & Others v/s NIL 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 51

Christopher Charles Kamolins v/s Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 52

Gowrishankar KS v/s The Union of India 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 53

X & Others v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 54

C Muniraju v/s SN Subbareddy & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 55

Case title: Lakshmidevi S R v/s State of Karnataka and Others Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 56

Rahul Gandhi v/s BJP 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 57

X v/s Y 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 58

Abdul Hameed v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 59

Sridutta S v/s Poojitha O 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 60

Renuka Yallamma Temple Trust & Others v/s State of Karnataka and Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 61

State of Karnataka v/s Raghuveer & Anr. and connected appeal 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 62

T N Jagadeesh v/s Chairman/Deputy Commissioner The District Caste and Income Verification Committee & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 63

Sahadevaprasad Urf Prasad & Anr. v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 64

Sri K. Balajee @ Balaji Sha v/s State of Karnataka and Anr 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 65

X & Anr. v/s Child Welfare Committee 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 66

Nanjunda v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 67

Sri K Arun Kumar v/s State of Karnataka & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 68

Winzo Games Private Limited v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 69

Bhimsingh v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 70

Abdul Khavee v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 71

Prabhugowda Patil v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 72

Ravi Hegde v/s Kelachandra Joseph George Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 73

Venugopal B.C., v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 74

Rohini Sindhuri, IAS v/s Roopa Divakar Moudgil Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

Ramana Reddy GV v/s State of Karnataka and Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 76

Asif v/s State of Karnataka 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 77

Syed Saif v/s State of Karnataka Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 78

Praveen D @ Madhu @ Maddy v/s State of Karnataka and Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 79

Brijesh Indira v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 80

Sanjukumar v. The Divisional Controller, North Western Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 81

Taj Parveen & Anr. v. Ezazulla Shariff & Ors. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 82

Glastronix LLP v. Glastronix Karmika Sangha & Ors. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 83

Murali BN & Anr. v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 84

Chandrakanth Y Toravi v/s The Managing Director & Ors. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 85

Devaraju @ Vinith Devendra @ Devu v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 86

The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v/s M/s Enchanting Travels Pvt. Ltd. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 87

High Court of Karnataka v/s State of Karnataka & Others Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 88

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

1. No GST On Liquidated Damages For Breach Of Contract: Karnataka High Court Quashes SCN

Case Title: M/s Krazybee Services Pvt. Ltd. v/s Additional Director, DGGI, BZU

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 16471 OF 2024 (T-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 1

The Karnataka High Court held that liquidated damages recovered for breach or delay in contractual obligations are compensatory in nature and do not constitute consideration for any supply under GST.

Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar examined whether the amount paid as compensation by the Lending Service Provider (LSP) to the assessee constituted 'liquidated damages' and whether such amount was taxable under the provisions of the CGST Act.

2. Flavoured Milk Is Not 'Beverage'; Taxable At 5% GST: Karnataka High Court Provides Relief To Dodla Dairy

Case Title: M/s Dodla Dairy Limited v/s The Union of India

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO. 21566 OF 2025 (T-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 2

The Karnataka High Court held that flavoured milk qualifies as a dairy product under Tariff Heading 0402 and not as a 'beverage' under Tariff Heading 2202. Consequently, GST at 5% will be applicable on flavoured milk instead of 12%.

Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar examined the classification of the flavoured milk under the GST, considering whether it falls under Tariff Heading 2202 (beverages containing milk) or under Tariff Heading 0402 (milk and cream, containing added sugar or sweetening matter).

3. Custodial Interrogation Not Mandatory For GST Offences Punishable Up to 5 Years: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail In ₹31 Cr Tax Evasion Case

Case Title: Sri Akram Pasha v/s Senior Intelligence Officer

Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION No.15066/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 3

The Karnataka High Court held that custodial interrogation is not mandatory in GST offences punishable with imprisonment up to five years, even though such offences are economic in nature. The bench further stated that the prescribed punishment under the CGST (Central Goods and Services Tax) Act must be considered while determining the gravity of the offence.

Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar stated that one of the most prominent criminal sanctions imposed with regard to economic offences is that of arrest. It is widely acknowledged that arrests result in deprivation of liberty of a person. Thus, while it is imperative to maintain law and order in society, the power to arrest must also always be subject to necessary safeguards.

4. IGST | Marketing & Technical Support Services To Foreign Parent Qualify As Export Of Services, Not Intermediary: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s Excelpoint Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. v/s Joint Commissioner of Central Tax (Appeals-I)

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.25598 OF 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 4

The Karnataka High Court held that marketing and technical support services provided by the assessee to its foreign parent qualify as export of services under the IGST Act (Integrated Goods and Services Tax) and do not constitute intermediary services.

Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar noted that the place of supply of these services is outside India, satisfying all conditions for export of services, and the assessee is eligible for a refund of IGST paid.

5. Karnataka High Court Asks Centre To Consider Cashless CGHS Treatment For Emergencies, Critical Care Cases

Case Title: Mrs. Ivy Miller Chahal v/s Union of India & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 27013 OF 2025

Citation No: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 5

The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Union of India to examine and consider, at the appropriate administrative level, the feasibility and phased implementation of a cashless medical treatment mechanism under the Central Government Health Scheme, particularly for emergency and critical care.

A single judge, Suraj Govindaraj said, “A cashless treatment mechanism, particularly for emergency and life-saving procedures, would significantly mitigate these hardships and align the administration of the CGHS with constitutional values. Such a system would give meaningful effect to the right to health under Article 21, ensure non arbitrary access to medical care under Article 14, and reinforce the State's obligation as a welfare employer.”

6. Mandatory Pre-Deposit For Customs Appeal Cannot Be Waived For Financially Sound Appellant: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Parisons Foods Private Limited v/s The Commissioner of Customs

Case Number: Writ Petition No13082 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 6

The Karnataka High Court has held that the mandatory pre-deposit required to pursue a customs appeal cannot be waived for a financially sound appellant/importer.

In a recently uploaded order pronounced on November 7, 2025, Justice M. Nagaprasanna said the pre-deposit under Section 129-E of the Customs Act does not deny access to justice.

“It is a statutory discipline that applies uniformly to all appellants. The statute's mandate endures, subsists and is unyielding, until constitutional courts deem fit to restrain its march,” the court observed.

7. Karnataka High Court Asks Centre To Consider Digitally Verifiable Bank Guarantees With Tamper-Proof QR Codes To Prevent Fraud

Case Title: M/S DRN Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v/s Union of India & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 31939 OF 2025 (GM-TEN) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 31808 OF 2025

Citation No: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 7

The Karnataka High Court has suggested some measures for the Union Ministry of Finance to take into consideration while evolving a comprehensive and standardised system for verification of bank guarantees furnished during the tendering process or otherwise, so as to prevent frauds.

The court was informed by the Government that it has taken cognisance of the issue of wider systemic vulnerability in the existing processes governing the submission, acceptance, and verification of bank guarantees, particularly in the context of public procurement and large-scale contractual engagements.

8. Neighbour Can't Be Booked For Matrimonial Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Asha G v/s State of Karnataka & ANR.

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1504 OF 2023

Citation No: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 8

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that a stranger/neighbour cannot be drawn into cruelty proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC amid matrimonial dispute between the husband, wife or other family members.

Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while allowing a petition filed by one Asha G, neighbour of the complainant's husband, who was booked under Sections 498A, 504, 506, 323 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

9. Section 498A IPC Targets Only Grave Cruelty, Not Incompatibility Or Imperfect Marriages: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Abuzar Ahmed & Others v/s State of Karnataka & Anr

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7053 OF 2024

Citation No: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 9

While quashing a 498-A IPC case registered by a woman against her husband and in-laws the Karnataka High Court said “The law does not criminalize incompatibility, nor does it punish imperfect marriages. Section 498A of the IPC is not a panacea for all matrimonial ills.”

A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna said that “It is a targeted provision meant to address grave cruelty, conduct so wilful and pernicious so as to imperil life, limb or mental health or even harassment tethered to unlawful demands of dowry. This is the purport of the provision - 498A.”

10. 'Passport Obtained Using Fake Aadhaar, Travelled To Bangladesh Five Times': Karnataka High Court Denies Bail In Human Trafficking Case

Case Title: Amol Chandra Das v/s NIA

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2004 OF 2025

Citation No: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 10

The Karnataka High Court recently refused to grant bail to an alleged Bangladeshi national accused by the NIA in a Human trafficking case, noting that he had travelled to Bangladesh five times using a passport obtained using a fake Aadhaar card.

A division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T dismissed the appeal filed by Amol Chandra Das @ Amol Das @ Sujib who is charged under Sections 370(3) and 120B of IPC along with Sections 14, 14(A)(B) and 14(C) of the Foreigners Act and Section 3 of the Passport (Entry Into India) Act, 1920 read with Rule 6 of the Passport (Entry into India) Rules, 1950.

11. 'Remains Only On Paper': Karnataka High Court Directs State To Relook Implementation Of Bangalore Mysore Expressway Project

Case Title: Chandrika v/s Special Land Acquisition Officer-I & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17839 OF 2010

Citation No: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 11

The Karnataka High Court has directed the State government to re-look implementation of Bangalore Mysore Expressway and Infrastructure Corridor project and directed it to take appropriate steps in this regard observing that the project aimed at decongesting the city has remained only on papers.

A division bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T referred to a Supreme Court's decision in Bangalore-Mysore Infrastructure Corridor Area Planning Authority & Anr. Vs. Nandi Infrastructure Corridor Enterprise Limited & Ors. (2021) wherein the apex court had upheld the planning and construction of the project.

12. Karnataka High Court Quashes Cheque Bounce Case Against Director Who Resigned Before Cheques Were Issued, Cites MCA Records

Case Title: Sujith Sudhakaran v/s Lalu Jacob Mammen

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 10408 OF 2023

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 12

The Karnataka High Court quashed a cheque dishonour complaint lodged against a man who was the Director of an infrastructure company, after referring to records of Ministry of Corporate Affairs and noting that when the cheques were issued to the complainant the petitioner was not a director.

Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Sujith Sudhakaran, Director of M/S Dreamz Infra India Pvt. Ltd, and quashed the complaint registered against him by Lalu Jacob Mammen, registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

13. Appeal Against Acquittal In Bailable Offences Lies Only Before High Court, Not Sessions Court: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: K Keshava v/s State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.528 OF 2013

Citation No: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 13

The Karnataka High Court recently set aside a conviction order passed by a Sessions Court, which had held the accused guilty of causing death by negligence. The High Court found that the State Government had wrongly filed an appeal before the Sessions Court challenging the order of acquittal passed by the trial court, even though the Sessions Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such an appeal.

The appellant, K. Keshava, had challenged the Sessions Court's order that allowed the State's appeal against the trial court's acquittal. The Sessions Court had convicted the accused for offences under Sections 279, 337, 338, and 304-A of the Indian Penal Code.

14. MMDR Act | Mining Lease Granted In Violation Of Rule 22-D Is Void Ab Initio; No Deemed Extension Permissible: Karnataka High Court

Title: M/s Shri Venkateshwara Minerals v State of Karnataka and Anr

Case Number: Writ Petition No. 23583 of 2024 (GM-MM-S)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 14

The Karnataka High Court has held that a mining lease granted in violation of the minimum area requirement under Rule 22-D of the Mineral Concession Rules, 1960, is void under Section 19 of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957 (MMDR Act).

Consequently, the Court ruled that such a void lease cannot be the subject of a 'deemed extension' under Section 8A(3) of the Act.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha was hearing a writ petition challenging an order dated 04.02.2023 rejecting the petitioner's application for deemed extension under Section 8A(3) of the MMDR Act.

15. Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Lawyer For Rape On Pretext Of Marriage, Says Complaint Appears To Be Manipulated

Case title: XXXX v/s State of Karnataka and Anr.

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1225 OF 2025 C/W

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2826 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 15

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a FIR lodged against an advocate for raping a woman on the pretext of marriage, noting that the complaint appeared to be a manipulation, questioning how the woman could make allegations when she appeared to be in a "subsisting marital relationship or the very least in a continuing domestic association".

Justice M Nagaprasanna perused the complaint and noted that the petitioner and complainant came to know each other in connection with a case concerning Negotiable Instruments Act as she needed legal assistance. It was alleged that in 2022 the advocate sent her a request on Instagram and also made phone calls requesting her to accept his request; thereafter they became friends.

16.Order VI Rule 17 CPC | 'Due Diligence' Test Not Mandatory For Every Amendment Of Plaint Sought After Trial Commences: Karnataka High Court

Case title: Shri Mohammadrafi and Anr. v/s Bandenawaz and Others

WRIT PETITION NO. 108512 OF 2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 16

The Karnataka High Court (Dharwad bench) has held that amendment of plaint under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is permitted even after commencement of trial despite non fulfilment of due diligence test, adding that the test does not have universal application and in appropriate cases such amendment is permitted.

Justice Anant Ramnath Hegde was hearing a plea challenging the petitioners (plaintiffs) application seeking amendment of the plaint, filed 10 years after the presentation of the plaint and also after commencement of trial.

17. 'Lawmaker Must Be Circumspect In Speech': Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Congress Leader For Abusing Woman Official

Case title: Sri Rajeev Gowda BV v/s State of Karnataka

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 17

Refusing to quash an FIR against Congress leader Rajeev Gowda BV accused of abusing a woman municipal commissioner over removal of "unauthorized" banners, observing that lawmakers while making speeches are expected to be circumspect specially while addressing a woman, that too a public servant.

For context, a film promotion programme for 'Cult' movie was to be conducted on 13-01-2026 at Nehru Stadium, Shidlaghatta Town which is stated to be under the leadership of the petitioner. Banners with petitioner's portrait were installed all over the city Fort area, wherein certain banners fell down and had hit certain vehicles. Against this a complaint was made to Municipal Commissioner who had cleared the banners as it was disturbing the public.

18. Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Man Booked For Murder Of Labourer Who Allegedly Raised 'Pakistan Zindabad' Slogan During Cricket Match

Case Title: Sri Natesh Kumar v/s The State of Karnataka

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 18

The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to an accused in a case relating to the death of a person, a daily wager from Kerala, who was allegedly assaulted by a group after he raised the slogan “Pakistan Pakistan Zindabad” during a local cricket match in Mangaluru.

Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar granted bail to Natesh Kumar, who was one of the accused, and directed his release in an FIR registered last year.

19. Business To Ply Bike Taxis Protected Under Article 19(1)(g), State Can Impose Reasonable Restrictions But No Blanket-Ban: Karnataka High Court

Case title: ANI Technologies Private Limited v/s State of Karnataka and batch

WRIT APPEAL NO. 906 OF 2025 and connected appeals

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 19

The Karnataka High Court on Friday (January 23) upheld taxi aggregators' right to business of plying bike taxis observing that it is a legitimate business protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, adding that a blanket-ban by the State is not a reasonable restriction under Article 19(6).

In doing so the court set aside a single judge's order which held that bike taxis cannot operate in the State unless the government issues relevant guidelines and rules under the Motor Vehicles Act.

Against this taxi aggregators like Uber, OLA, Rapido, motorcycle owners and welfare associations had moved the division bench in appeal.

A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Joshi in its 111 page order held:

"...it cannot be disputed that the business of plying taxis is a legitimate business, and the right to engage in such activity is protected under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. The said business is not inherently dangerous, illegal or immoral...However, engaging in such business maybe subject to reasonable restriction under Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India, which expressly provides that Article 19(1)(g) does not prevent the State from making any law imposing reasonable restrictions in the interest of the general public...In our view, a blanket prohibition on issuing contract carriage permits to motorcycles cannot be considered as a reasonable restriction within the meaning of Article 19(6) of the Constitution of India for several reasons".

20. Can't Yield To Lawbreakers: Karnataka High Court Asks Police, Organizer To Discuss Measures For 'Peaceful' Conduct Of Traditional Fair

Case title: Veeramarannasamy Devarajeerrnoddara Kattada Seva Samithi and Anr. v/s State of Karnataka and Others

WP 1450/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 20

The Karnataka High Court on Friday (January 23) directed the concerned police inspector and administration of Chithradurga district to convene a meeting with the organizers of a traditional fair in the area so as to ensure that it is conducted peacefully.

In doing so the court observed that the administration cannot give into the conduct of a few persons who may try to create a law and order situation but at the same time said that the organizers must also assist the administration.

The court was hearing a plea seeking a direction to the tahsildar and the police officer to forthwith consider the petitioner's representation of 27-11-2025 and grant permission to conduct the Veeramarannaswamy Jatra/Fair between 28.01.2026 to 03.02.2026.

21. 'Sessions Court Can't Impose Life Imprisonment Without Remission': Karnataka High Court Modifies Murder Convict's Sentence

Case title: Rudresh @ Rudraiah v/s State of Karnataka

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.69/2018

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 21

The Karnataka High Court recently modified a sessions court order convicting a man for murder of a child and sentencing him to life imprisonment until his natural death, holding that sessions court have not been conferred with the power to impose punishment of imprisonment for life without remission.

The appellant had challenged a trial court order convicting him for murder and sentencing him to life imprisonment "until his natural death".

22.Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To PFI Member Booked For 'Conspiring' To Radicalize Muslim Youth To Commit Terrorist Acts

Case title: Shahid Khan v/s State of Karnataka

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1475 OF 2025 [21(NIA)]

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 22

The Karnataka High Court refused to grant bail to a man accused of being a member of banned organization Popular Front of India (PFI) of allegedly conspiring to radicalise Muslim youth to carry out terrorist acts, as well as raising funds for the commission of terrorist activities.

The court was hearing an appeal by Shahid Khan, one of nineteen accused, challenging dismissal of his bail plea by NIA court. The nineteen accused have been booked for offences under Sections 153A and 120B (criminal conspiracy) IPC. They have been further booked under Sections 13(Punishment for unlawful activities), 17(Punishment for raising funds for terrorist act), 18(Punishment for conspiracy, etc.), 18A(Punishment for organising of terrorist camps), 18B (Punishment for recruiting of any person or persons for terrorist act) and 22B (Offences by societies or trusts) UAPA.

23. Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To Man Accused Of Being ISIS Member, Engaging In Transferring Terror Funds Via Cryptocurrency

Case title: Reeshaan Thajuddin Sheikh v/s NIA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1548 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 23

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the bail plea of a man accused of being an ISIS member who was allegedly radicalized and recruited by his college mate, was involved in reconnaissance and arson activities with an intention to wage war against the government and engaging in transfer of terror funds through cryptocurrency.

24.'Who Is Safe?' Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Man Accused Of Taking Woman's Photos Inside Trial Room

Case title: Faisal Ulla Sharif @ Faisal Ulla Shariff v/s State of Karnataka and Anr.

CRL.P 865/2026 IA 1/26 FOR STAY

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 24

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (January 27) refused to entertain a plea for quashing an FIR lodged against a man accused of clicking photographs of a woman while she was in the trial room of a clothing shop in Bengaluru.

The petitioner had moved a plea seeking quashing of a 2024 FIR registered by the police for offence of voyeurism under Section 77 BNS. In the interim the petition sought a stay on the investigation.

25. Karnataka High Court Suggests Empowering Civil Courts To Stay Mutation Orders In Title, Possession Dispute Cases

Case title: Shri Rukmanna v/s The Deputy Commissioner and Others

WRIT PETITION NO.100504 OF 2021

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 25

The Karnataka High Court (Dharwad bench) has suggested empowering the Civil Court to pass interim measures staying mutation orders passed by revenue authorities under the State Land Revenue Act concerning properties involving possession or title disputes.

This the court said would help avoid multiplicity of parallel proceedings and aide litigants, since a title dispute can only be adjudicated by civil courts.

The court was hearing a petition challenging a 2020 of the Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) Karnataka Land Revenue Act, cancelling mutation of land based on a disputed Will, and directed that entry be made in the record in the names of the natural heirs.

26.Court Can Direct Interim Sharing Of Joint Family Property Income With Married Sisters Having Constructive Possession: Karnataka High Court

Case title: Dyamappa v/s Smt. Bhimavva Basavantappa Kadannavar and Others

WRIT PETITION NO. 103885 OF 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 26

The Karnataka High Court has held that married sisters' claim for maintenance from their brother is not maintainable in a partition suit.

However, it said, if a prima facie case is made out that a co-owner (plaintiff) is being exclusively deprived of income from joint family property by another co-owner (brother) even though former is in constructive possession, the court may direct interim sharing of such income pending final adjudication of the suit.

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde in his order said:

"If a prima facie case is made out to take a view that the plaintiff has share in the property, and the defendant is deriving the income from the suit property to the deprivation of the plaintiff, then in such cases, the Court as an interim measure, can direct the defendant in the suit, either to share or deposit the profits derived from the suit property, subject to the result of the suit. Such an application seeking interim mesne profits or profits gets more credence in appeals against the decree for partition or in final decree proceedings where the plaintiff established that the property is joint family property and defendant is exclusively deriving the income from the suit property though the plaintiff is in constructive joint possession of the same"

27. Promise To Marry: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Interfere With Rape Acquittal, Cites Complainant's Own Reluctance To Marry

Case title: The State v/s Abu Salman Saifan Sab Thambe and Another

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.812 OF 2025 (A)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 27

The Karnataka High Court rejected the State's appeal challenging a man's acquittal accused of rape on false promise of marriage, after noting that the complainant–who met the accused on a matrimonial site–had herself stated that she was unwilling to marry to him.

A division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T was hearing the State's appeal challenging sessions court order which had acquitted accused for offences under Sections 354(Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 376(rape), 420(cheating), 504 and 506(criminal intimidation) read with Section 34 IPC.

Taking note of the trial court order which had considered the complainant's (PW1) statement the bench said:

"Having considered all the materials available on record, and in particular the statement of PW1 that she was not willing to marry accused No.1, and taking note of all these factors, we do not find any ground to admit the appeal. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed".

28. 'Offence Is Horrendous, Heinous': Karnataka High Court Upholds Cancellation Of Rape Accused's Bail For Threatening Survivor, Family

Case title: Rajanna D @ Raju v/s State and Another

CRL.P 16751/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 28

he Karnataka High Court on Friday (January 30) upheld a sessions court order cancelling a man's bail, who is accused of raping a minor in 2024, after he allegedly threatened the survivor and her family while out on bail.

In doing so, the high court said that the offence was "heinous and horrendous" and the trial court order warranted no interference. The petitioner had moved the high court against cancellation of bail on the ground that he had threatened the survivor and her family.

After hearing the matter, Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order dictated:

"Copious evidence is placed before the concerned court for filing application seeking cancellation of bail. The concerned court by a detailed order rendering cogent reasons cancelled the bail of the petitioner. The offence is horrendous, heinous. Therefore the cancellation of the bail, on the score that the petitioner has threatened the witness would not warrant any interference".

29. Trial Court Erred In Ignoring Grievous Injuries On Neck: Karnataka High Court Convicts Husband For Attempting To Murder Wife Using Machete

Case title: The State by Sub-Inspector of Police v/s Sri Nagesh SV and connected petition

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.104 OF 2018

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 29

The Karnataka High Court overturned a trial court order which had acquitted a husband for offence of attempt to murder his wife by attacking her with a razor blade and a chopper/machete, holding that the court had failed to note the nature of injuries on vital parts of the wife's neck.

It further said that the trial court had instead invoked Section 326 IPC (Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by use of acid, etc) while loosing sight of the "intention and knowledge" of the accused, specially when the injuries sustained by the victim were grievous in nature.

30. 'Everything Can't Be Countenanced': Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Over 'Obscene Depiction' Of Hindu Deities In WhatsApp Group

Case title: Sri Sirajuddin v/s State of Karnataka

CRIMINAL PETITION No.3258 OF 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 30

The Karnataka High Court refused to quash a 2021 FIR lodged against a man who was stated to be member of a WhatsApp Group allegedly circulating 'obscene depiction' of Hindu Deities, observing that a "prima facie" case was made out wherein the material on its face could disturb communal harmony.

The FIR was registered under IPC Sections 295A (Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs)

31. Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR, Order Directing Probe Against Former Bangalore North University VC Based On Defamation Complaint

Case title: Prof Niranjana v/s State & Another

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7806 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 31

The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR against former Vice Chancellor of Bangalore North University Professor Niranjana, registered based on an order passed by a trial court directing investigation into a criminal defamation private complaint.

In doing so the court observed that if defamation is an amalgam of all other offences the trial court could not have directed investigation by the police as defamation is a lis between two persons.

The petitioner had sought quashing of an FIR registered under Sections 3(1)(q) and (u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Section 356(2) (defamation) BNS.

32. Open Areas Shrinking But Govt Can't Be Barred From Using Allotted Land: Karnataka High Court Rejects PIL Against Construction On 'Playground'

Case title: Dr. BR Ambedkar Youth Social and Cultural Welfare Trust v/s Union of India

WRIT PETITION NO. 8485 OF 2024 (GM-RES-PIL)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 32

The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a PIL against construction of a compound wall around a passport office claimed to be constructed on a land used as a playground by children and public in Bengaluru, after noting that the land in question was allotted to the government.

In doing so the court noted that while there is concern that open lands in the city are shrinking, however the government cannot be interdicted to use lands allotted to it specially when no zonal plan was produced to show that the land was a playground.

The court was hearing a PIL by Dr BR Ambedkar Youth Social and Cultural Welfare Trust seeking directions to Passport Seva Kendra, a Government of India undertaking to immediately demolish and remove the structures that have been raised on a property, measuring 1 acre 30 guntas falling in Survey No.12 of Koramangala Village, Begur Hobli, Bengaluru.

33. FIR Against Juvenile For Petty Offence Unsustainable Under JJ Act: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case

Case title: X v/s State of Karnataka

CRL.P 6143/2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 33

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (February 03) quashed an FIR against an accused who was stated to be a juvenile at the time of registration of the crime, noting that offence alleged against him was a petty offence under Juvenile Justice Act and thus FIR could not have been registered against him.

Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing the petitioner's plea who had challenged the registration of a 2023 FIR under IPC Sections 341 (wrongful restraint),323 (punishment for voluntarily causing simple hurt), 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 506 (criminal intimidation), 354(B) (Assault or use of criminal force to woman with intent to disrobe), 34 (common intention) registered against various accused including petitioner, and consequent filing of chargesheet.

34. 'Benefit Derived Prior To Election': Karnataka High Court Overturns Disqualification Of Councillors On Ground Of Wives Winning Land Auction

Case title: Shri Jayant Jadhav Anr. v/s Principal Secretary & Others

WRIT PETITION NO. 19069 OF 2025 (LB-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 34

The Karnataka High Court overturned the disqualification of two Belagavi Municipal Corporation Councillors who were disqualified on the ground that they had failed to disclose that their wives had succeeded in an auction of leasehold rights in respect of properties constructed by Public Works Department.

In doing so the court observed that the leasehold auction had happened prior to when the petitioners were elected as Councillors, and thus the alleged benefit was not derived after the petitioners were elected as Councillors.

35. 'Victim's Evidence Inconsistent, Untrustworthy': Karnataka High Court Upholds Acquittal Of Accused In POCSO Case

Case title: State of Karnataka v/s Manikanta @ Manu & Others

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.800 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 35

The Karnataka High Court upheld a trial court order acquitting two men accused of sexually assaulting a girl who was stated to be a minor, observing that the victim's evidence was inconsistent and not trustworthy.

The trial court had acquitted the two accused who were earlier booked under Sections 4(Punishment for penetrative sexual assault), 7(Sexual assault), 8(punishment for sexual assault), 11(iii)(sexual harassment of child by showing any object in any form or media for pornographic purposes), 12 (punishment for sexual harassment)POCSO Act and Sections 366(A)(Procuration of minor girl), 376(1) (rape) and 354(A)(1)(i)(2) (sexual harassment) and (D) (stalking) of IPC.

36. Karnataka High Court Grants Relief To WinZo's Subsidiary Seeking Payment Of Salaries To Employees After Account Freeze By ED

Case title: Zo Pvt Ltd/. v/s Directorate of Enforcement

WRIT PETITION NO.962/2026 (GM-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 36

The Karnataka High Court has asked Gaming company WinZo's subsidiary Zo Private Limited to approach the ED with a list of its employees to whom salaries are to be paid, directing the agency to verify the same and communicate it to the concerned bank enabling the company to make payments.

The petitioner company, whose account was frozen by the ED, had sought for a declaring that the agency's search and seizure at the office of M/s FinAdvantage Consulting [P] Limited–the petitioner's outsource accounting firm, is illegal and void.

37. 'Police Can't Curtail Fundamental Rights Without Reasons': Karnataka High Court Quashes Order Barring Speakers At Hindu Sammelana

Case title: Hindu Sammelana Samithi v/s The Commissioner of Police Belagavi and Others

WRIT PETITION NO. 100782, 100783 OF 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 37

The Karnataka High Court quashed notices issued by the State Police prohibiting two Speakers from addressing a programme–'Hindu Sammelana' schedule for February 6 and 8, holding that police cannot arbitrarily stop a person from speaking in a public meeting based on their whims and fancies.

In doing so the court said that State's curtailment of citizens' fundamental rights must be based on some reasons.

Justice Lalita Kanneganti in her order said:

"Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India gives every citizen the right to freedom of speech and expression. Article 19(1)(b) gives the right to assemble peacefully. It is settled law that freedom of speech includes right to express view in public meeting. However, the State has the power to impose reasonable restriction in the interest of public order, security of State, sovereignty and integrity of India, decency or morality and prevention of incitement to office. The Karnataka Police Act, 1963 permits the police to regulate the public assemblies and processions. They can prohibit the assembly, if there is apprehension of disturbance threat to public peace and tranquility and if there is any risk of violence. The police cannot arbitrarily stop a person from speaking in a public meeting basing on their whims and fancies. When the State is curtailing the citizens' fundamental rights, it shall be based on reasoning and based on some material".

38. Delegations Under Different Co-operative Laws Can't Be Clubbed To Attract Bar On Voting Under State Cooperative Societies Act: Karnataka HC

Case title: Mohan v/s The State of Karnataka and batch

WRIT PETITION NO. 107749 OF 2025 (CS –RES) and connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 38

The Karnataka High Court has held that even though State Cooperative Societies Act, State Souharda Sahakari Act and The Multi-State Cooperative Societies Act are cognate laws, delegation for voting under the Acts would not be hit by bar of repeat voting under Section 21 State Cooperative Societies Act.

The petitions raised a challenge to the nomination of delegates by certain cooperative societies to participate in elections of Canara District Central Cooperative Bank Limited. The grievance of the petitioners is that the 6th respondent, under different statutory enactments has already exercised its right of delegation on two prior occasions and that the present nomination constitutes a third delegation, thereby infringing the statutory embargo engrafted in Section 21 of the Karnataka State Cooperative Societies Act.

39. Arrest Made Prior To 'Pankaj Bansal' Judgment Not Illegal For Want Of Written Grounds: Karnataka High Court Denies Bail To Terror Accused

Case title: Mr Irfan Nasir @ Irfi v/s The NIA

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1015 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 39

The Karnataka High Court upheld a trial court order denying bail to a man accused of being member of a terrorist gang and being part of criminal conspiracy to wage war against Government of Syria, observing that the mandate of furnishing written grounds of arrest as per Supreme Court's Pankaj Bansal judgment applies prospectively.

In doing so the court said that the accused who was arrested in 2020, prior to Pankaj Bansal judgment cannot seek this ground to claim that the arrest was illegal.

40.'Barbaric, Must Be Curbed With Iron Hands': Karnataka High Court Upholds Death Penalty Of 3 For Gang Rape, Murder Of Minor Girl

Case title: The Registrar General v/s Jayban Adivasi @ Jay Singh and Others and batch

Crl. A. Nos. 2216/2024 & 2246/2024, Crl.R.C.No.2/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 40

The Karnataka High Court upheld a 2024 trial court order imposing death penalty on three men convicted for gang rape and murder of a minor girl, observing that the offence was barbaric and such acts must be curbed with iron hands.

A division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T in its 176 page order observed:

"Having considered all these factors into consideration and materials available on record, even this Court has to strike balance between mitigating circumstances and aggravating circumstances. No doubt, the accused persons are young aged and the same cannot be a ground to come to a conclusion that they could be imprisoned for life and age is not a determinative factor by itself and except this circumstance, there is no other mitigating circumstances. The accused persons inhumanely in a brutal manner subjected the victim girl, who is aged about 7 years and 7 months for continuous sexual act one by one, without caring the life of the victim and the same is nothing but a barbaric act of gang rape..."

41. Mere Claim Of Short, Discontinuous Cohabitation Not Enough To Seek DNA Test Of Child: Karnataka High Court Rejects Husband's Plea

Case title: X v/s Y

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201037 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 41

The Karnataka High Court rejected a man's plea seeking DNA test of the child born to his wife suspecting the child's paternity on the ground that they did not cohabit for a long time.

In doing so the court said that DNA test on paternity of a child can't be ordered as a matter of course, finding that the petitioner did not dispute that he had cohabited with the wife and also not disputed their marital status.

The marriage between petitioner husband and respondent wife was solemnized on 25.05.2022; a child was born who is around 1 years old. Subsequently, due to matrimonial dispute, the wife filed a petition under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. for grant of maintenance.

42. S.23 Senior Citizens Act | Express Recital In Gift Deed For Maintenance By Transferee Not Mandatory: Karnataka High Court

Case title: Sri Venkataiah v/s The State of Karnataka & Others

WRIT PETITION NO.13313 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 42

The Karnataka High Court has held that a gift deed through which a senior citizen transfers his property to the transferee need not contain an "express recital" of maintenance of the senior citizen, to claim that such transfer is void under Section 23 Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act.

In doing so the court held that maintenance of senior citizen under Section 23 is implicit wherein the provision seeks to protect the trusting nature of senior citizens, who may be financially dependent on children and rely on trust and moral expectations.

43. Karnataka High Court Cancels Bail Of 7 Booked For Radicalizing Youth In Ballari ISIS Module Case

Case title: NIA v/s Md. Shahbaz @ Zulfikar @ Guddu and batch

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOs.1023, 858, 927 & 932 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 43

The Karnataka High Court cancelled bail granted to seven men accused of being involved with the Ballari ISIS module, charged under the UAPA for allegedly recruiting and radicalization of vulnerable youth to carry out terrorist activities in India, remarking that the alleged procedural lapse was raised belatedly.

The court was hearing four criminal appeals filed by NIA challenging Special Court's orders dated 08.04.2025, 11.03.2025 and 14.03.2025 granting bail to respondent/accused Nos.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8 observing that grounds of arrest were not furnished to the accused in writing who arrested in 2023.

44. Karnataka High Court Upholds Murder Conviction, Life Sentence Of Four; Rejects Claim That Eye Witness Had Seen Accused's Photo Prior To TIP

Case title: Sandeep and Others v/s State of Karnataka

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1994/2019, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1918/2019

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 44

Upholding the murder conviction and life sentence of 4 men, the Karnataka High Court rejected their contention that the deceased's wife–an eye witness to the incident, had already seen the photographs of the accused persons purportedly published in newspapers prior to Test Identification Parade.

In doing so the court said that there was no specific question put to the wife during the cross examination that prior to TIP the photos of the accused were published in the media.

A division bench of Justice HP Sandesh and Justice Venkatesh Naik T in its order said:

"Having considered this evidence, it is very clear that she has narrated how an incident has taken place and she is an eye witness to the incident and immediately after the death of her husband, she gave the statement between 10.30 to 11.30 p.m. and narrated each of overt act of the accused persons and also categorically given the description of accused Nos.1 to 3 that two were tall and one was short and the person who was short itself assaulted her and the fact that she also sustained injury is not in dispute and wound certificate is also produced.Hence, it is clear that she is an eye witness to the incident".

45. Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Congress Leader For Giving 'Malicious Speech' Against Hindus Over 2022 Hijab Row

Case title: Mukram Khan & Anr. v/s The State of Karnataka & Anr.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201252 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 45

The Karnataka High Court (Kalaburagi bench) refused to quash an FIR against Congress leader Mukram Khan accused of making a speech, which had outraged the religious feelings of Hindu community, by allegedly stating that "he will cut them into pieces" in respect of the 2022 Hijab incident.

The court was hearing a plea by Khan and his son Dr. Soyab Khan seeking quashing of an FIR under IPC Sections 298 (Uttering words, etc., with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings), 295(A) (Deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage religious feelings of any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs) and 212(harbouring offender) r/w Section 34 (common intention).

46. Gold Loan Company Can't Keep Stolen Gold Pledged To It, Security Interest No Defence: Karnataka High Court

Case title: IIFL Finance Ltd. v/s State of Karnataka & Others

WRIT PETITION NO. 31057 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 46

The Karnataka High Court has observed that a financial company offering loan based on pledged stolen gold cannot defeat the lawful title of the owner whose gold is stolen or impede investigation into FIR pertaining to such alleged acts.

The court was hearing a plea by IIFL Finance Limited seeking to quash a notice issued under Section 94 (Summons to produce document or other thing) BNSS by the police in relation to theft of gold which had been pledged by the accused to the petitioner for securing a loan.

47. Bigamy Charge Not Sustainable Against Alleged Second Wife: Karnataka High Court Reiterates, Retains Cruelty FIR Against Husband

Case title: Devaraj HD v/s State of Karnataka

CRL.P 8070/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 47

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (February 12) quashed charge of Bigamy (Section 494 IPC) against the alleged second wife of a man, in a complaint filed by the first wife of the husband reiterating that such a spouse cannot be dragged into the case specially where the allegations stems from a suspicion.

The court was hearing a petition moved by a husband and his family as well as his alleged second wife, seeking quashing of an FIR filed on the complaint of the complainant stated to be the first wife of the petitioner. The FIR was lodged under Sections 498A(cruelty), 323(voluntarily causing simple hurt), 494(bigamy), 417(punishment for cheating), 506(criminal intimidation), 149 IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. In June last year the court had stayed the probe.

48. Karnataka High Court Rejects Plea Making Corruption Allegations Against CM Siddaramaiah, Deputy CM DK Shivakumar; Warns Of Costs

Case title: Kallalinga E Hoogar v/s Sri Siddaramaiah and Others

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2100 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 48

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a plea making allegations of corruption against Chief Minister Siddaramiah, Deputy CM DK Shivakumar and seeking registration of criminal proceedings observing that the petitioner had added every person holding office and if the plea is permitted it would be abuse of law.

The court was hearing a petition moved by National president of Bhrastachar Virodha Party and a former employee of Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited, against Chief Minister Siddaramiah, Deputy CM DK Shivakumar and various MLAs making allegations of corruption against them.

49.Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Bangladeshi National Accused Of Forging Indian Passport Citing Non-Supply Of Grounds Of Arrest

Case title: Mohammed Manik Hussain @ Mohammed Manik v/s State of Karnataka

CRIMINAL PETITION No.7711/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 49

The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to a Bangladeshi national accused of forging an Indian passport by using a fake Aadhar Card after noting that the grounds of arrest had not been provided to the petitioner.

The court was hearing the bail plea by a Bangladeshi national accused of offences under Section 319(Cheating by personation), 336(3)(Forgery), 340(Forged document or electronic record and using it as genuine) BNS; Section 12-1A(a)(b) (foreign national obtaining passport by suppressing information of his nationality or holds a forged passport or any travel document) Passport Act and Section 14-A (Penalty for entry in restricted areas, etc) and 14-B (Penalty for using forged passport) of Foreigners Act.

50. Karnataka High Court Grants Relief To Woman Accused Of Hurting Neighbour Over Quarrel On 'Drying Clothes', Grants ₹50,000 To Victim

Case title: State of Karnataka v/s Smt. Prema & Anr.

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.141 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 50

The Karnataka High Court modified a woman's conviction from voluntarily causing grievous hurt to voluntarily causing hurt with dangerous, after noting that a quarrel had suddenly arisen between her and her female neighbour over drying of clothes which was a "trivial issue".

The court modified the conviction to Section 324 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt using dangerous weapons or means) which is punished with imprisonment of a term which may extend to 3 years, or with fine, or with both. In contrast to this, punishment for offence under Section 325 is imprisonment for a term which may extend to 7 years and fine.

51. Indian Succession Act | Mother Has No Right Over Inheritance When Son Who Died Intestate Is Survived By Wife & Children: Karnataka High Court

Case title: Mrs. Estrida Lucy Janet Vaz & Others v/s NIL

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 3127 OF 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 51

The Karnataka High Court has held where a son dies intestate leaving behind wife and children–being direct lineal descendants, his mother would not have a right to estate/inheritance under the Indian Succession Act.

The court was hearing an appeal challenging a trial court order which had dismissed a family's plea seeking issuance of succession certificate of the deceased member. The trial court had dismissed the plea of the deceased's wife and children taking note of the claim of the deceased's mother.

Justice Jyoti M in her order observed that the deceased died died intestate, and he is survived by his wife and children as his lineal descendants, whereas the Trial Court refused the succession certificate on the mistaken premise that the deceased's mother's status as a legal heir precluded the applicant's claim.

52. Centre Can Issue 'Leave India Notice' To Foreign National Residing On Employment Visa Obtained Through Fraud: Karnataka High Court

Case title: Christopher Charles Kamolins v/s Union of India

WRIT PETITION NO. 26412 OF 2019

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 52

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the 'Leave India' notice issued to an Australian national who was residing on an Employment Visa, noting that the visa was obtained via misrepresentation as no process for recruiting local talent for the post was conducted.

It held that the Leave India notice was not vitiated for violation of principles of natural justice and the petitioner, as a foreign national residing on a contractual visa obtained through misrepresentation, does not enjoy the same degree of procedural protection as a citizen or a long-term resident seeking citizenship.

53. Karnataka High Court Rejects PIL To Disband Tatkal, Emergency Quota Schemes For Rail Tickets

Case title: Gowrishankar KS v/s The Union of India

WP 3787/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 53

The Karnataka High Court on Friday (February 13) dismissed a PIL seeking to disband tatkal and emergency quota schemes for railway tickets, stated to be implemented without legislative backing.

When the matter was called, a division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha dismissed the petition for non-prosecution.

The PIL prayed for disbanding existing Tatkal and Emergency Quota schemes implemented through executive orders without any legislative backing. In lieu of these schemes the petition sought direction to the Union of India to table schemes before the Parliament in accordance with Section 60 and 199 of Railways Act in order to ensure proper legislative compliance.

54. Karnataka High Court Quashes Dowry FIR, Notes Alleged Payments Unbelievable Given Complainant Family's Financial Condition

Case title: X & Others v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7331 OF 2021

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 54

The Karnataka High Court quashed a dowry demand FIR registered against the husband and his kin, finding that the allegations were baseless specially in view of the fact that the wife's family belonged to economically weaker section wherein no financial sources were shown to prove how the alleged demand was paid.

The charge sheet alleged that husband and his kin demanded Rs.10 Lakh, 1 kg of gold, 2 kgs of silver as dowry, out of which the complainant's family allegedly paid Rs.5 Lakh in cash, 500 grams of gold and silver articles.

55. Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Election Of Congress MLA SN Subbareddy But Rejects BJP Leader's Claim To Be Declared Winner

Case title: C Muniraju v/s SN Subbareddy & Others

ELECTION PETITION No.4 OF 2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 55

The Karnataka High Court has set aside the election of Congress MLA SN Subbareddy elected from the Bagepalli constituency in the 2023 legislative assembly polls, over allegations of malpractice raised by the BJP's C Muniraju.

The court however partly allowed Muniraju's election petition while refusing to declare him as the winning candidate.

After examining various issues raised in the petition, Justice MGS Kamal in his order held:

"Election of Respondent No.1 to the 16th Karnataka Legislative Assembly from 140- Bagepalli Assembly Constituency is set aside. Relief of Declaration sought by the petitioner to declare him as duly elected to fill the seat of 16th Karnataka Legislative Assembly from 140- Bagepalli Assembly Constituency is rejected. Registry shall communicate this order to the Speaker of the State Legislature and shall also forward certified copy to the Election Commissioner as required under Section 103 of the R.P. Act, 1951 read with Rule 19 of Election Petitions Procedure Rules, Karnataka"

56. Karnataka High Court Refuses To Interfere In Plea Alleging ₹1.45 Lakh Fraud By Religious Figure, Cites Alternative Remedies

Case title: Lakshmidevi S R v/s State of Karnataka and Others

WP 3071/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 56

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (February 17) refused to interfere in a woman's plea seeking police action on her complaint alleging financial fraud of Rs. 1.45 Lakh by a religious person, granting her liberty to avail alternative remedy of approaching senior police officers and the magistrate court.

The petitioner contended that she was duped of certain money by a "religious person". She sought that the police be directed to take suitable action on her complaint dated 17-11-2025. The plea further seeks a direction to the police to give her proper protection from one Prasanna Guruji and Shailaja of Shakti Nageshwara Temple, Bengaluru and to take suitable action against them for duping her of Rs. 1,45,000.

57. Rahul Gandhi Had No Nexus With Alleged Defamatory Publication: Karnataka High Court While Quashing BJP's Defamation Case

Case title: Rahul Gandhi v/s BJP

CRL.P 14473/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 57

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (February 17) quashed proceedings against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in a criminal defamation case filed by State BJP over an alleged defamatory advertisement and related social media posts, holding that the party was not the aggrieved person.

In doing so the court further held that except for the use of his photo, Gandhi had no nexus with the alleged defamatory advertisement. The case arises out of the Congress party's “Corruption Rate Card” advertisement which claimed that various posts and transfers under the then-BJP government carried fixed “rates” and “commissions”.

Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav in his order observed that the complainant before the trial Court is "Bharatiya Janata Party, represented by its State Secretary, BJP Karnataka, S.Keshava Prasad".

The court noted that the complaint appeared to indicate that the BJP's state unit, the government formed by the BJP in the stat earlier and the BJP political party have bee defamed by the advertisement.

It however said that if the aggrieved party is a "national party"–BJP then he complaint ought to have been filed by the "duly authorized representative of the National Party".

"However, the letter of authorisation is issued by the President of the State Unit to its Secretary of the State Unit as made out by Ex.C.1. Such authorisation of the President of the Sate Unit cannot be accepted as legal authorisation to represent the BJP as a National Party," the court said.

58. Accusing Wife Of Extramarital Affair Is Mental Cruelty, Ground To Live Apart: Karnataka High Court Denies Divorce To Husband Claiming Desertion

Case title: X v/s Y

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 918 OF 2021

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 58

The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order denying divorce to a husband claiming desertion, observing that mere accusation of the wife having an extra-marital affair amounts to mental cruelty and would be a cogent reason for her to live apart.

The court was hearing the husband's appeal challenging a family court order dismissing his plea for divorce under Section 13(1(b) of Hindu Marriage Act sought on the ground of desertion.

A division bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice TM Nadaf in its order observed that merely living separately for considerable period of time may not amount to desertion, but what is to be proved is the animus for separate living attributable on the party/spouse living apart.

"Though the respondent has been placed ex-parte, there is no cogent evidence placed by petitioner to substantiate his claim of desertion by the respondent. The trial Court in paragraph No.17 has clearly stated that despite taking the contention that the respondent is having extra marital relationship, but the petitioner has failed to prove the same by leading substantial evidence and by producing substantial proof in line with such statement and further observed that the allegation of extra marital relationship without proof would operate as mental cruelty and perhaps this may be the reason for the wife to live apart," the court said.

59. Marriage Hall Owner Not Liable For Child Marriage Without Knowledge Or Intent: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Abdul Hameed v/s State of Karnataka

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201493 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 59

The Karnataka High Court (Kalaburagi bench) quashed criminal proceedings lodged against the owner of a marriage hall wherein a minor pregnant girl was allegedly married, holding that there was no hard and fast rule that the owner must verify the age proof of the bride and bride-groom while renting the premises.

Justice Rajesh Rai K in his order said:

"The allegation against this petitioner is that he is the owner of Hussain Hall, Vijayapura, where the marriage of victim and accused No.1 was performed. As rightly contented by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the marriage hall was booked by the parents of accused No.1 and the victim with the employees of petitioner. In such circumstance, there is no such hard and fast rule that the owner of the marriage hall should verify the age proof of the bride and bride-groom while renting out the wedding hall. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the petitioner has the knowledge and intention along with the other accused persons to perform the marriage of the minor victim with accused No.1. Hence the offences charge sheeted against the petitioner do not attract against him".

60. Wife's Convenience Prevails In Maintenance Cases; Husband's Plea Citing Widowed Mother Not Ground For Transferring Case: Karnataka High Court

Case title: Sridutta S v/s Poojitha O

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4556 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 60

Refusing to transfer a maintenance case on the husband's request, the Karnataka High Court observed that merely because his mother is a widowed aged lady would not be a ground for seeking transfer of the case from Chikkamagaluru to Bengaluru where he is residing.

The court was hearing the husband's plea seeking transfer maintenance case pending before family court in Chikkamagaluru to the family court in Bengaluru.

Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar was informed that there is no any order of interim maintenance by the Family Court, Chikkamagaluru and husband's counsel said that no such prayer had been made by the wife seeking interim maintenance.

"The respondent is not having any avocation and she is claiming maintenance from her husband. It is the convenience of the wife which is to be looked into whenever transfer of the cases is sought. If the case is transferred as sought for by the petitioner as well, it will cause inconvenience to the respondent - wife as she has to travel from Chikkamgaluru to Bengaluru as she is not having any avocation and no interim maintenance is ordered by the Family Court, Chikkamagaluru. Mainly because the petitioner's mother is widowed aged lady is not a ground for seeking transfer of the case from Chikkamagaluru to Bengaluru where the petitioner is residing. Considering the above aspect, there are no grounds made out for transfer of the maintenance case as sought for," the court said.

61. 'No Public Interest, Should Not Engage Judicial Time': Karnataka High Court Rejects PIL Seeking Change Of Ward Name, Imposes ₹5K Cost

Case title: Renuka Yallamma Temple Trust & Others v/s State of Karnataka and Others

WRIT PETITION NO. 2923 OF 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 61

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a PIL seeking change of name of Beereshwaranagara Ward to Chunchaghatta, observing that no public interest had arisen in the matter nor were any fundamental rights of the petitioners violated.

The court was hearing a Public Interest Litigation petition challenging a notification dated 19.11.2025 passed by respondent No.3–Under Secretary of State's Urban Development Department with regard to Ward No.43 known as 'Beereshwaranagara' Ward in Bengaluru. The petitioners, who were residents of the area, had sought that the ward be renamed as 'Chunchaghatta'.

A division bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha observed that no fundamental rights of the petitioners or anybody was violated in naming the ward as Beereshwaranagara, and petitioners' opinion or a though that they may have cannot be termed as public interest litigation.

62. Victim Not Supporting Prosecution Case, Non-Corroboration Of Medical Evidence: Karnataka High Court Upholds Acquittal In POCSO Case

Case title: State of Karnataka v/s Raghuveer & Anr. and connected appeal

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1695/2025, CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2122/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 62

The Karnataka High Court upheld the acquittal of a man accused of raping a girl claimed to be a minor, holding that in cases where the victim does not support the prosecution and where medical evidence does not corroborate the allegations, such cases have a high chance of resulting in acquittal.

In doing so the court noted that the victim had herself eloped with the accused.

63. Person Can Profess Lingayat Faith Yet Belong To Ganiga Caste, Both Not Mutually Exclusive Identities: Karnataka High Court

Case title: T N Jagadeesh v/s Chairman/Deputy Commissioner The District Caste and Income Verification Committee & Ors.

WRIT PETITION NO. 24836 OF 2016

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 63

The Karnataka High Court has observed that the Lingayat religious community and Ganiga–which is a distinct occupational caste–are not mutually exclusive, wherein a person may profess Lingayat community faith yet belong to Ganiga caste within the broader community fold.

Justice Suraj Govindaraj was considering whether in law, "Lingayat" (religious community) and "Ganiga" (oil pressers) are mutually exclusive identities, or whether Ganiga may subsist as a distinct caste group within the broader Lingayat fold.

64. 'Every Sinner Has A Future': Karnataka High Court Modifies Sentence Of Two Convicted For Duplicating ATM Cards

Case title: Sahadevaprasad Urf Prasad & Anr. v/s State of Karnataka

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100019 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 64

The Karnataka High Court (Dharwad bench) recently modified the jail sentence of two men convicted for theft of ATM cards from the original card holders and duplicating the same and for drawing money from the accounts of the victims.

The court was hearing a plea challenging conviction for offence under Section 66(c) IT Act and Sections 380 (Theft in dwelling house, etc.) read with Section 34 IPC, and sentence of 3 years and 2 years imprisonment respectively.

65. 'Akin To Crime Thriller': Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR By Businessman Duped Of ₹200 Crore By Fake SBI Site

Case title: Sri K. Balajee @ Balaji Sha v/s State of Karnataka and Anr

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5539 OF 2024 and connected petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 65

The Karnataka High Court refused to quash a cheating and cybercrime FIR against four persons accused of duping a businessman of over Rs. 200 Crore by allegedly creating a fake State Bank of India website, hacking the actual bank website and obtaining OTPs terming the case akin to a "crime thriller".

The court was hearing petitions filed by four accused persons challenging FIR registered for various offences including those under Sections 419(cheating by personation), 420(cheating), 465(forgery), 120B(criminal conspiracy), 34(common intention) IPC and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act.

66. Karnataka High Court Allows Abandoned Child To Continue With Caregivers Who Raised Him For 10 Yrs

Case title: X & Anr. v/s Child Welfare Committee

WRIT PETITION NO. 18481 OF 2021

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 66

The Karnataka High Court has asked the Central Adoption Resource Authority to consider the plea of a married couple in their 50s seeking adoption of a child they took in 10 years ago after he was found abandoned in a Mutt, pursuant to inquiry by the Child Welfare Committee under the relevant rules.

Justice DK Singh in his order noted that Rule 18 and 19 of the Juvenile justice (care and protection of children) Model Rules states that the Child Welfare Committee (CWC) has been given a responsibility to conduct an inquiry in relation to children who are in need of care and protection.

67. Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Murder Accused Over Non-Supply Of Grounds Of Arrest As Per Mihir Rajesh Shah Judgment

Case title: Nanjunda v/s State of Karnataka

CRIMINAL PETITION No.16200/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 67

The Karnataka High Court granted bail to a man accused of murder after noting that grounds of arrest had not been furnished to him by the investigating officer who had produced the accused before the magistrate.

The court was hearing a plea by accused No.2 seeking bail booked for offences punishable under Section 103(1)(murder), 115(2)(voluntarily causing hurt), 118(1)(voluntarily causing hurt or grievous hurt by dangerous weapons), 351(2)(criminal intimidation, 351(3) read with 3(5) (common intention) of BNS.

Justice Shivashankar Amarannavaar referred to Supreme Court's decision in Mihir Rajesh Shah v/s State of Maharashtra (2025) and said:

"In the case on hand also, the investigating officer who has arrested the petitioner produced him before the jurisdictional Judicial Magistrate has not furnished the grounds of arrest to the petitioner. Therefore, the arrest will be rendered illegal entitling the release of arrestee.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the said case has also observed as under: 60. ……However, the prosecution may move an application for remand or custody, if required, along with the reasons and necessity for the same, after the supply of the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused, before the magistrate if the case has not been committed for trial and in case the trial having commenced before the Trial Court as the case may be".

68. Salary Of Officer Relieved From Post Without Next Posting To Be Recovered From Official Empowered To Order Transfer: Karnataka High Court

Case title: Sri K Arun Kumar v/s State of Karnataka & Others

WRIT PETITION NO. 35777 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 68

Issuing guidelines on posting of state government officials, the Karnataka High Court has said that if an officer is relieved from his previous post without providing him with the next posting then his salary for the waiting period shall recovered from the officer empowered to order such transfer.

The court was hearing an Excise officer's plea challenging an order passed by the the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal which rejected his plea to quash a Notification dated 29.01.2025 posting another officer in the petitioner's place without providing the petitioner any posting.

69. Karnataka High Court Quashes Cheating FIR Against WinZo After Woman Alleged Misuse Of PAN Card On Gaming App

Case title: Winzo Games Private Limited v/s State of Karnataka

CRL.P 10707/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 69

The Karnataka High Court on Saturday (February 21) quashed a 2024 FIR registered against online gaming company WinZo Games Private Limited booked in an FIR wherein a woman has alleged that her Pan Card details were stolen and misused on WinZo's gaming app.

While pronouncing the order Justice M Nagaprasanna said:

"Allowed, quashed. It is made clear that the quashment of proceedings in impugned crime will not come in the way of any other accused nor any other crime pending".

70. 'Unintentional Mistake': Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Over Hoisting National Flag Upside Down On Independence Day Function

Case title: Bhimsingh v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200201 OF 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 70

The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR registered against a panchayat official booked for erroneously hoisting the National Flag upside down during independence day function, observing that it was an unintentional mistake by the official.

Justice Rajesh K Rai in his order said:

"As could be gathered from records, the contents of the complaint reveals that, the petitioner was deputed as Officer for the Flag hoisting ceremony on 15.08.2021. However, he negligently without taking any such proper precautions, displayed the Flag upside down and same was unfurled erroneously. 8. Further, on careful scrutiny of the charge sheet materials, all the witnesses have stated that the said incident was caused only due to the negligent act of the petitioner and the same was not with an intention or with an ulterior motive to insult the National Flag".

71. Karnataka High Court Quashes Obscenity FIR Over WhatsApp Message Questioning Invite To Hindu Priests For Inaugural Function

Case title: Abdul Khavee v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 202013 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 71

The Karnataka High Court quashed proceedings against a man booked in obscenity FIR for sending WhatsApp message to the complainant stating that he and his brother should not have invited Hindu priests to inauguration of a function hall, as "they treated Muslims very badly".

72. Police Officer Can't Be Prosecuted For Corruption Without Proof Of Demand Or Acceptance Of Bribe: Karnataka High Court Reaffirms

Case title: Prabhugowda Patil v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5163 OF 2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 72

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that both demand and acceptance of bribe by a public servant to perform a public duty are a pre-requisite to invoke offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act.

In doing so the court quashed an FIR registered against a police Sub-Inspector for allegedly demanding Rs. 1 Lakh from the complainant to close a case registered against the latter.

73. Minister KJ George's Defamation Case Against Kannada Prabha Editor Must Be Tried By Magistrate, Not MP/MLA Court: Karnataka High Court

Case title: Ravi Hegde v/s Kelachandra Joseph George

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4209 OF 2021

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 73

The Karnataka High Court set aside proceedings before the sessions court against Editor-in-Chief of Kannada Prabha newspaper Ravi Hegde in a criminal defamation case lodged against him by Minister K J George with respect to certain newspaper articles.

The legislator had in 2020 filed a defamation case against Ravi Krishna Reddy and N R Ramesh, president and general secretary of the Karnataka Rashtra Samithi, and Hegde for allegedly making “baseless, deliberate, reckless, malicious and false allegations” against him.

Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav was hearing Hegde's plea–who is accused no.4 before the trial court–seeking setting aside of an order dated 17.01.2020 whereby cognizance was taken against Hegde.

74. Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against School Principal Over Morphed Photo Of Him Standing On National Flag

Case title: Venugopal B.C., v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.

CRIMINAL PETITION No.11694 OF 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 74

The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR registered against a school principal over a picture circulated on WhatsApp which showed him standing on the National Flag, noting the picture of the petitioner had been edited by his student and thus no mens rea was attributable to the former.

The petitioner, principal of a Government High School, had challenged an FIR registered for offences punishable under Section 2 of the Prevention of Insult to National Honors Act.

75. Karnataka High Court Upholds Order Taking Cognizance Of IPS Officer Roopa Moudgil's Defamation Complaint Against IAS Officer Rohini Sindhuri

Case title: Rohini Sindhuri, IAS v/s Roopa Divakar Moudgil

WRIT PETITION No.3379 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

The Karnataka High Court dismissed a plea by IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri challenging a trial court order taking cognizance of a criminal defamation complaint lodged by IPS officer D Roopa Moudgil, observing that it was well reasoned passed with due application of mind.

Justice M Nagaprasanna in his order noted that when Sindhuri had lodged criminal defamation proceedings against Moudgil, then the latter's plea challenging the same before the high court was dismissed on the ground that Moudgil had made the alleged statements in good faith. The court thus said:

"It bears emphasis that this very plea was urged by the respondent (Moudgil) in the earlier proceedings and was repelled by a coordinate bench of this Court, which held in unambiguous terms that question of good faith is a matter of evidence to be adjudicated in the crucible of a full fledged trial. The order is quoted hereinabove. The law does not countenance a differential application of principle. What was held to be triable issue for one party cannot metamorphose into a shield for the other at the threshold stage. The adage “what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander” becomes apposite, in the circumstances obtaining in the case at hand".

76. Once Non-Cognizable Report Is Registered, Police Can't Lodge FIR Based On Second Complaint Without Giving Reasons: Karnataka High Court

Case title: Ramana Reddy GV v/s State of Karnataka and Anr.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6805 OF 2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 76

The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR against a man for intimidating a woman, after noting that the FIR was registered on the basis of the second complaint and not on the basis of a Non Cognizable Report registered earlier.

The petitioner had challenged an FIR for the offences punishable under IPC Sections 341(wrongful restraint), 427(mischief causing damage to property amounting to ₹50) , 504(intention insult with intent to provoke) and 506(criminal intimidation).

The complainant alleged that the petitioner being the Junior Wireless Officer entered her chamber shouting against her. Immediately she called her other colleagues while the petitioner lifted a chair and threatened to smash her head.

77. Karnataka High Court Upholds Husband's Murder Conviction, Life Term For Setting Man Ablaze Over Suspicion Of Affair With Wife

Case title: Asif v/s State of Karnataka

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2072 OF 2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 77

The Karnataka High Court upheld a trial court order convicting a husband for murder who poured petrol and set ablaze a man over suspicion of affair with his wife, observing that he had the intention to commit the offence.

In doing so the court affirmed the dying declaration of the deceased as well as the evidence of the eye-witnesses, finding it credible and without any material contradiction.

78. No Requirement To Take Signature Of Accused On Record Of Test Identification Parade: Karnataka High Court

Case title: Syed Saif v/s State of Karnataka

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16636 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 78

The Karnataka High Court has observed that there is no mandate to take signature of the accused on the record of the test identification parade conducted in respect of an offence.

The Court was hearing a man's bail plea booked for offence under Section 311 (robbery, dacoity with attempt to cause grievous hurt) BNS. The prosecution had alleged that when the complainant was walking on a road, an unknown person came on a scooter, stopped the complainant and threatened him with a machete-like long chopper to hand over money.

79. Karnataka High Court Quashes Murder Case Against Man On Ground Of Parity With Co-Accused Acquitted Last Year

Case title: Praveen D @ Madhu @ Maddy v/s State of Karnataka and Anr.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2970 OF 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 79

The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings lodged against a man accused in a rioting and murder case, after noting that his co-accused had been acquitted by the trial court as the prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

The court was hearing a plea wherein the petitioner–accused No.14, challenging the continuance of criminal case proceedings against him for offences including IPC Sections 147(rioting), 302(murder), 120B(criminal conspiracy), read with Section 149 (unlawful assembly) and Section 3(2) of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. He sought quashing of the proceedings arguing that his co-accused by acquitted by the sessions court in 2025 and he is entitled to the same relief on the principle of parity.

80. Furnishing Surety On Last Day Of Timeline Indicated In Release Order Would Not Disentitle Accused Of Benefit: Karnataka High Court

Case title: Brijesh Indira v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1774 OF 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 80

Granting relief to a murder accused, the Karnataka High Court held that merely because the accused furnished surety for release on the last day on which it could have been furnished as directed in the order, would not disentitle him from the benefit of the release order.

The court was hearing a man's plea challenging a sessions court order which had rejected his application for furnishing of bonds and sureties.The petitioner is accused No.1 in an FIR registered for offences punishable under various provisions of the Arms Act, and under Sections 103(1)(murder), 238 (causing disappearing of evidence) read with Section 3(5) (common intention) BNS.

81. Punitive Termination Cannot Be Passed Without Hearing; Misconduct-Based Discharge Violates Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Sanjukumar v. The Divisional Controller, North Western Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation & Anr.

WRIT PETITION NO. 101353 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 81

The Karnataka High Court has held that termination of a punitive or stigmatic nature cannot be made without providing an effective opportunity of hearing or conducting a departmental inquiry. The Court observed that once an employee has entered service, even an order styled as termination cannot be sustained if it is founded on allegations of misconduct and passed without adherence to the principles of natural justice.

Justice K.S. Hemalekha was hearing a writ petition challenging the order dated 13.12.2024 issued by the North Western Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation, whereby the petitioner's services as a KSRTC Security Guard were terminated. The petitioner had been appointed on compassionate grounds following the death of his father while in service. While in service, a show-cause notice was issued alleging that the petitioner had produced false educational documents. Subsequently, by the impugned order, the Corporation terminated his services on the premise that he had not appeared for the concerned semester examination and had secured appointment by misrepresentation. The petitioner contended that the order was stigmatic and punitive in nature and had been passed without conducting any departmental enquiry or furnishing the alleged verification report.

82. [Specific Relief Act] Opportunity To Amend Must Be Given Before Dismissing Suit U/S 34 Proviso: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Taj Parveen & Anr. v. Ezazulla Shariff & Ors.

REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1657 OF 2013

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 82

The Karnataka High Court has held that before dismissing a suit under the proviso to Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for want of appropriate consequential relief, the Court must afford the plaintiff an opportunity to amend the plaint or, in deserving cases, mould the relief. The Court observed that the proviso is intended to avoid multiplicity of litigation and not to defeat substantive rights on technical grounds, and recommended that Parliament revisit the Law Commission's suggestion to amend the provision to resolve continuing interpretational controversy.

83. Labour Courts Continue To Have Jurisdiction Till Tribunals Are Formed Under Industrial Relations Code 2020: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Glastronix LLP v. Glastronix Karmika Sangha & Ors.

W.P. No. 3784 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 83

The Karnataka High Court has held that the Labour Courts, Tribunals and other statutory authorities functioning under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, will continue to exercise jurisdiction till the Tribunals are constituted and become functional under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020. The Court observed that in view of the amendment to Section 104 of the Code on 16.02.2026, the repeal of the 1947 Act does not create a vacuum, and the existing adjudicatory forums will continue to function in terms of the saving clause.

84. Remand Illegal When Offences Are Bailable: Karnataka High Court Quashes Man's Custody For Allegedly Kidnapping Wife

Case title: Murali BN & Anr. v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2898 OF 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 84

The Karnataka High Court has directed release of a man sent to judicial custody by the trial court for allegedly kidnapping his wife, after noting that admittedly his major wife had voluntarily gone with him and thus the offence was wrongly invoked.

Noting that the offences invoked were bailable, the court said that the trial court had erred in sending the petitioner to judicial custody.

85. Karnataka High Court Directs North West Road Transport Corporation To Issue Guidelines On Transfer Of Employees In 3 Months

Case title: Chandrakanth Y Toravi v/s The Managing Director & Ors.

WRIT PETITION NO.100194 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 85

The Karnataka High Court has directed the North West Road Transport Corporation (NWRTC) to frame within three months guidelines governing transfer of employees, adding that till such guidelines are issued the transfer orders made on administrative grounds shall be speaking orders containing reasons.

The court passed the order while setting aside the transfer of a driver, transferred from one division to another on administrative grounds, noting that the Corporation had no guidelines in place and the same could lead to arbitrariness.

86. Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To POCSO Accused Noting Minor Was Of Age To Understand Consequences Of Her Consensual Acts

Case title: Devaraju @ Vinith Devendra @ Devu v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 12427 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 86

Granting bail to a man accused of raping a minor girl, the Karnataka High Court observed that the 15-year-old survivor had a love affair with the accused and she is of an age where she could understand the consequences of her actions.

The court was hearing the man's bail plea booked under BNS Sections 137(2)(kidnapping), 75(sexual harassment), 96(procuration of child), 126(2)(wrongful restraint), 351(2) (criminal intimidation) and 64(rape) and Section 6(aggravated penetrative sexual assault) POCSO Act.

87. EPF Act | Penalty For Delayed PF Contributions Can't Be Reduced Below 25% Of Arrears: Karnataka High Court

Case title: The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v/s M/s Enchanting Travels Pvt. Ltd.

WRIT PETITION NO. 23372 OF 2021

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 87

The Karnataka High Court has held that the penalty imposed on an establishment under the Employees Provident Fund Act for delaying payment of employees' provident fund contribution cannot be reduced below 25% of the arrears.

In doing so the court modified an order which had reduced a company's penalty from over Rs. 3 Lakh to Rs. 25,000.

88. Chinnaswamy Stadium Stampede: Karnataka Crowd Control Bill 2025 Referred For Consultation, High Court Closes Suo-Motu PIL

Case title: High Court of Karnataka v/s State of Karnataka & Others

WRIT PETITION NO. 16530 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 88

The Karnataka High Court recently closed a suo-motu PIL concerning the Chinnaswamy stadium stampede which occurred ahead of an event to celebrate Royal Challenger Bangalore's (RCB) victory at the 2025 IPL Final, after it was informed that a bill overseeing crowd control had been sent by the State Assembly for consultation.

For context, the high court had last year taken suo-motu cognizance of the incident and had asked the Karnataka Government to ascertain cause of the tragedy and how to prevent it in future. Reportedly 11 people lost their lives in the stampede which had occurred in Bengaluru while over 30 people are stated to have suffered injuries. RCB won the 2025 IPL Final defeating Punjab Kings on June 3, winning the coveted trophy for the first time, since the inception of the IPL in 2008.

89. Democratic Process Can't Be Curbed Unreasonably: Karnataka High Court Asks Police To Permit Use Of Loudspeakers For Trade Union's Campaign

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.

90. Karnataka High Court Grants 3-Day Emergency Parole To Disabled Life Convict To Attend Sister's Wedding Event

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.

91. Delay In Lodging Complaint No Ground To Grant Acquittal: Karnataka High Court Upholds Order Convicting Man For Son-In-Law's Murder

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.

92. 'No Material': Karnataka High Court Upholds Order Acquitting 8 Of Rioting Inside Mosque, Attacking Persons Offering Prayers

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".

93. Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Congress Leader Booked For Blocking Train At Station During Protest

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.

94.Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Ex-MP's Son Booked In CBI Case Over Alleged Counterfeiting & Forgery Of Govt Stamps

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.

95.'Protection Of Human Dignity Doesn't Cease At Prison Gate': Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines On Home-Cooked Food To Undertrials

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.

96.Karnataka High Court Refuses Custody Of Rescued Girl To Mother Allegedly Involved In Prostitution Racket

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".

97. Alteration Of Child's Surname To Reflect Mother's Lineage Does Not Affect Father's Rights: Karnataka High Court

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.

98. Karnataka HC Suggests State To Issue Guidelines On Background Check For Migrant Workers, Calls For Balanced Approach Without Stigmatization

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.

99. Karnataka High Court Quashes Proceedings Against Congress Leader Accused Of Assaulting Ex-MLA In Legislative Assembly

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.

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

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.

101. Foreign Nationals Also Entitled To Article 22 Safeguards; Grounds Of Arrest Must Be Communicated In Language Understood: Karnataka High Court

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.

102. Courts Will Become Forums For Personal Vendetta If Every Broken Relationship Is Criminalised: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR

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'.

103. Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted When Cheque Bounces Due To Subsequent Freezing Of Drawer's Account: Karnataka High Court

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.

104. Storing Child Sexual Abuse Material On Mobile Can Attract POCSO & IT Act Offences, Even Without Transmission: Karnataka High Court

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.

105. 'Virtually Threatening Court': Karnataka High Court Raps Advocate For "Dictating Order" In Review Petition, Imposes ₹25K Cost

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.

106. "Digital Gold Platform Cannot Escape Law Merely By 'Cosmetic Garb' Of Transactions": Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash FIR Against JAR App

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.

107. Karnataka High Court Flags Gaps In Tracing 'Missing' Persons, Orders Implementation Of SOP & District-Level Missing Persons Units

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 10^th April.

108. 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.

109. Live-In Relationship With Another Woman Not Bigamy: Karnataka High Court Quashes Wife's Case Against Septuagenarian Husband

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.

110. Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Child Marriage Case Against Groom, Families; Warns Temples, Priests And Marriage Halls Of Liability

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.

111. Not Every 'Contentious Probate Proceeding' Results In Decree; 'Substance Over Form' Determines Appeal: Karnataka High Court

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.

112. Karnataka HC Issues 'Gender Neutral' Guidelines To Obtain Spouse's Financial Records In Maintenance Cases, Says RTI Act Cannot Be Utilised

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.

113. Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Woman Accused Of Raising 'Jai Bangla' Slogan, Notes She Later Shouted 'Jai Bharat Mata Ki Jai'

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 11^th March.

114. 'CM Has Better Work To Do': Karnataka High Court Asks CM Office Not To Directly Entertain Transfer Requests

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.

115. Valuables Should Not Remain In Police Custody: Karnataka High Court Grants Interim Custody Of Seized Articles To Accused

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].

116. Married Daughter Living In Matrimonial Home Can't Seek Compassionate Appointment After Her Father's Death: Karnataka High Court

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.

117. Custody Dispute Must Be Decided At Child's Place Of 'Ordinary Residence': Karnataka High Court Orders Return Of Minor To Mother In US

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.

118. 'Courts Can't Supplant Executive Wisdom': Karnataka High Court Refuses To Entertain Hotels Association's Plea Over LPG Shortage

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.

119. Developers Can't 'Strong-Arm Law': Karnataka High Court Rejects Pleas Against BBMP Notices For Removing Encroachment Over Storm Water Drains

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.

120. 2013 Wenlock Hospital Murder: Karnataka High Court Orders Action Against District Surgeon & IO For 'Serious Lapses' In Probe

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.

121. 'State Largest Litigant, Must Act With Accountability': Karnataka High Court Calls For Digital Litigation Monitoring System To Prevent Delays

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'.

122. 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.

123. Minor's Suicide Case: Karnataka High Court Directs Bengaluru Pubs To Strictly Verify Age Before Granting Entry

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'.

124. 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.

125.'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.

126. Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Union Minister Prahlad Joshi's Brother In Alleged 'Election Ticket' Cheating Case

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…”.

127. “Highly Improper": Karnataka High Court Quashes Seizure & RC Cancellation Of Mercedes In Tax Case, Says RTO Acted Beyond Authority

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.

128. Mere Conferment Of Ministerial Perks Doesn't Make Cabinet Rank Appointments 'Ministers' Under Article 164(1A): Karnataka High Court

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.