Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 54 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 70Nominal IndexX & Others v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 54C Muniraju v/s SN Subbareddy & Others 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 55Case 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) 58Abdul Hameed v/s State...
Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 54 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 70
Nominal Index
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
Judgments/Orders
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.
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"
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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".
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".