Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 71 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 86Nominal IndexPrabhugowda Patil v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 71Ravi Hegde v/s Kelachandra Joseph George Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 72Venugopal B.C., v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 73Rohini Sindhuri, IAS v/s Roopa Divakar Moudgil Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 74Ramana Reddy GV...
Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 71 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 86
Nominal Index
Prabhugowda Patil v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 71
Ravi Hegde v/s Kelachandra Joseph George Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 72
Venugopal B.C., v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 73
Rohini Sindhuri, IAS v/s Roopa Divakar Moudgil Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 74
Ramana Reddy GV v/s State of Karnataka and Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
Syed Saif v/s State of Karnataka Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 76
Praveen D @ Madhu @ Maddy v/s State of Karnataka and Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 77
Brijesh Indira v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 78
Sanjukumar v. The Divisional Controller, North Western Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 79
Taj Parveen & Anr. v. Ezazulla Shariff & Ors. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 80
Glastronix LLP v. Glastronix Karmika Sangha & Ors. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 81
Murali BN & Anr. v/s State of Karnataka & Anr. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 82
Chandrakanth Y Toravi v/s The Managing Director & Ors. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 83
Devaraju @ Vinith Devendra @ Devu v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 84
The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner v/s M/s Enchanting Travels Pvt. Ltd. Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 85
High Court of Karnataka v/s State of Karnataka & Others Citation 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 86
Judgment/Orders
Case title: Prabhugowda Patil v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5163 OF 2023
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 71
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.
Case title: Ravi Hegde v/s Kelachandra Joseph George
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4209 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 72
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.
Case title: Venugopal B.C., v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.11694 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 73
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.
Case title: Rohini Sindhuri, IAS v/s Roopa Divakar Moudgil
WRIT PETITION No.3379 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 74
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".
Case title: Ramana Reddy GV v/s State of Karnataka and Anr.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6805 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 75
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.
Case title: Syed Saif v/s State of Karnataka
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 16636 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 76
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.
Case title: Praveen D @ Madhu @ Maddy v/s State of Karnataka and Anr.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2970 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 77
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.
Case title: Brijesh Indira v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1774 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 78
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.
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) 79
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.
Case Title: Taj Parveen & Anr. v. Ezazulla Shariff & Ors.
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 1657 OF 2013
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 80
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.
Case Title: Glastronix LLP v. Glastronix Karmika Sangha & Ors.
W.P. No. 3784 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 81
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.
Case title: Murali BN & Anr. v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2898 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 82
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.
Case title: Chandrakanth Y Toravi v/s The Managing Director & Ors.
WRIT PETITION NO.100194 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 83
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.
Case title: Devaraju @ Vinith Devendra @ Devu v/s State of Karnataka & Anr.
CRIMINAL PETITION No. 12427 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 84
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.
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) 85
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.
Case title: High Court of Karnataka v/s State of Karnataka & Others
WRIT PETITION NO. 16530 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 86
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.