Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 275 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 286Nominal IndexGoutham Raj S.M. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 275Sidul Mandal v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 276Bosch Automotive Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. Labour Commissioner & Anr.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 277X v. State of Karnataka & Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru.,...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 275 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 286
Nominal Index
Goutham Raj S.M. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 275
Sidul Mandal v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 276
Bosch Automotive Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. Labour Commissioner & Anr.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 277
X v. State of Karnataka & Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 278
State of Karnataka & Authorities v. Employees of Private Aided Educational Institutions., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 279
XXX v. Registrar General of Karnataka High Court & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 280
Mangaluru Mahanagara Palike & another v M/S Maya Traders & others., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 281
SRI MUDDURA M. SOMANNA @ PRASAD v SRI B. RAMESH, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 282
M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 283
M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 284
Shimoga Institute of Medical Sciences v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 285
Miss Dayeena Banu v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 286
Case Title: Goutham Raj S.M. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12679 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 275
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a 24-year-old man, accused of assaulting police personnel, while observing that merely running away from police cannot constitute 'use of criminal force' under Section 353 [Assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty] of the IPC. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 275]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed the petition by quashing the charge sheet for offences under Sections 332, 353 and 34 of the IPC.
On the early hours of December 15, 2023, when the police was night patrolling, the petitioner and another accused was stopped by the police out of suspicion. The police allegedly demanded the vehicle documents which was met with a refusal from the accused.
Later, when the complaint was registered by the Police Constable, it was portrayed as the accused assaulting the policemen and fleeing the scene.
“…Section 353 punishes a person who would stop the public servant from performance of official duties by use of criminal force. There is no allegation of use of criminal force. In fact the allegation is, petitioner ran away when the police wanted to stop him. If running away is usage of criminal force against a public servant, there cannot be a better illustration of abuse of the process of the law…”, the court noted in the order, pointing out the discrepancy in invoking Section 153.
Case Title: Sidul Mandal v. State of Karnataka & Anr.
Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 8790 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 276
The Karnataka High Court has observed that facilitating fake Aadhaar and PAN cards for illegal immigrants from Bangladesh prima facie amounts to an act endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India under Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS). [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 276]
The single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty thus dismissed the bail plea of Sidul Mandal, a 46-year-old man from Dhaka, accused in the racket.
“…The act committed by the petitioner as found in the charge sheet has the effect of endangering the sovereignty, unity and integrity of India and the said act is punishable with imprisonment for life under Section 152 of BNS, 2023. However, the Investigation Officer has prima facie erred in not invoking Section 152 of BNS, 2023, in the present case against the petitioner though the charge sheet material prima facie makes out a case for the said offence…”, the Court observed in the order.
Case Title: Bosch Automotive Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. v. Addl. Labour Commissioner & Anr.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 8044 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 277
The Karnataka High Court has held that a writ petition against a workers' union to restrain a proposed strike is not maintainable as a general rule under the Industrial Relations Code 2020, remarking that Trade Union does not qualify as 'State' under the Constitution.
On the other hand, an aggrieved employer could approach the Industrial Tribunal for enforcement of the statutory prohibition on strikes during conciliation proceedings. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 276]
For context, proposed strike is prohibited under Section 62(1)(d) and is illegal under Section 63 of the Industrial Relations Code, 2020
The single judge bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde, while dismissing the writ petition filed by Bosch Automotive Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. against a strike notice issued by its Automotive Electronics Employees Union, said,
“it is evident that respondent No.2-Union does not qualify as a body discharging public duty or public function. Admittedly, the Union is neither the 'State' nor an instrumentality or agency of the State. It is neither a statutory authority nor a body substantially funded by the State. Nor is it a body required by statute to discharge any public function. In the present case, no statutory obligation involving the discharge of a public duty is imposed upon respondent No.2-Union. The petitioner is, indeed, complaining of violation of the statutory provisions of the Code, 2020 governing strikes. Such statutory obligations, however, cannot, by themselves, be equated with a public duty or public function”.
Case Title: X v. State of Karnataka & Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru
Case No: Writ Petition No. 22291/2025 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 278
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that police investigating one offence cannot turn a blind eye to evidence prima facie disclosing another serious offence, while directing the Crime Investigation Department (CID) to conduct a fresh probe into an attempt to rape case of a woman. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 278]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while allowing the writ petition filed by the victim, censured the Thirumalashettahalli police for confining the crime merely to an offence under Section 307 of the Indian Penal Code (attempt to murder), completely overlooking the 'graphic narration' of attempted sexual assault in the victim's statement.
“…It is startling, if not shocking, that the investigating agency confined the crime merely to an offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC. Equally disquieting is the fact that the jurisdictional Court, oblivious to the tenor and substance of the victim's statement, proceeded to frame charge only for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC…. A statement which, on its plain reading, prima facie discloses ingredients of an attempt to commit rape appears to have escaped the attention of both the investigating agency and the Court below….Such an omission, at least prima facie, strikes at the very root of a fair and comprehensive investigation…”, the court observed in the order.
“…The investigation, prima facie, appears to have perceived the stab wounds but overlooked the conduct that preceded those wounds. It noticed the injuries upon the body, but failed to examine whether those very injuries were inflicted in the course of an attempt to commit a far graver offence. Such an investigation cannot be described as either comprehensive or complete…”, the court reasoned further.
Case Title: State of Karnataka & Authorities v. Employees of Private Aided Educational Institutions
Case No: W.A.No.2476/2015 and 101 connected matters
CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 279
Highlighting the parity between government and aided school employees, the Karnataka High Court has struck down two state enactments that sought to deny pensionary benefits and additional increments to teachers and non-teaching staff of private aided educational institutions.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 279]
The Division Bench of Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur and Justice S.G Pandit in its order held that the two state enactments were violative of Article 14, terming it 'manifestly arbitrary' and an attempt of the legislative to overrule court judgments.
“…The impugned enactments…do not cure any defect pointed out by the Court. Nor do they fundamentally alter the legal framework upon which the earlier judgments were rendered. The enactments merely seek to negate the effect of the earlier judgments and deprive the employees of the benefits recognised thereunder. Such an exercise amounts to legislative overruling simpliciter and not a valid exercise of removal of legal basis….”, the court observed.
Case Title: XXX v. Registrar General of Karnataka High Court & Ors.
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 22456 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 280
The Karnataka High Court has directed Google, Indian Kanoon, and others maintaining judicial records to mask the name of a woman who was acquitted in a criminal case in 2019, observing that a final acquittal must be recognised not just in courtrooms but also in the digital world. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 280]
The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna, presiding over a single bench, held that the continued presence of the petitioner's name in online records, despite her acquittal, violated her right to live with dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court also dismissed the apprehension expressed by the High Court's registry and City Civil Court Registrar that granting the relief would 'open floodgates' for similar claims.
“…Courts do not adjudicate rights by counting the number of those who may seek justice in the future. They adjudicate them by testing the legitimacy of the claim against the touchstone of the Constitution. If, indeed, the recognition of such a right were to result in many more similarly placed citizens approaching constitutional Courts seeking identical relief, so be it..”, the court firmly said.
Case: Mangaluru Mahanagara Palike & another v M/S Maya Traders & others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 694 OF 2025 (LB-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 281
Karnataka High Court has held that Mangaluru Mahanagara Palike (Mangalore Municipal Corporation) can require firecracker traders to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from fire department as a precondition to carry on their business, even in absence of an express statutory provision backing such a requirement.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 281]
“Private interest stands subordinate to public interest and public at large,” the Division Bench of Justice DK Singh and Justice TM Nadaf said while setting aside the Single Judge's order quashing the municipal corporation's directions.
The appeal arose from the Single Judge's order allowing writ petitions filed by firecracker traders, who contended that the Municipal Corporation's direction requiring them to produce an NOC lacked statutory backing and violated their fundamental right under Article 19 of the Constitution.
The High Court observed, “It cannot be lost sight that, in recent times, there are several fire hazards particularly in cracker shops and go-downs, claiming lives of innocents, including children,” adding that the intention of the authorities to insist on NOC is to “prevent any unfortunate hazard before it causes serious damages both life and property into its fold.”
The Court further noted that such a requirement squarely falls within the purview of reasonable restrictions under Article 19.
The Court took into account the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Karnataka State Fire and Emergency Services Department on February 1, 2024, prescribing detailed safety measures for retail sale of crackers, crackers godown and crackers manufacture units. The SOP also included annual renewal of fire license from the fire department. The Court said that it is the duty of the fire department to ensure strict adherence to the SOP and that of municipal corporation to minimize the risk of unfortunate fire hazards.
Case Title: SRI MUDDURA M. SOMANNA @ PRASAD v SRI B. RAMESH
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.636 OF 2024
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 282
The Karnataka High Court has refused to remand a cheque bounce case under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) after finding that the convict had repeatedly failed to cross-examine the complainant and lead any defence evidence, holding that the case was a “classic example of abuse of process.”[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 282]
Justice HP Sandesh was hearing a revision petition challenging the judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court convicting the petitioner in the cheque bounce case and seeking remand of the matter.
The Court noted that the complainant remained present before the Trial Court on 12 occasions, but the petitioner failed to cross-examine him, and instead sought exemptions on 21 hearing dates.
The Court remarked, “He made the complainant to be present before the Court for his cross-examination 12 times and instead of appearing before the Court, exemptions were filed on 21 dates of hearing.”
Case Title: M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt Ltd & Ors. v. Directorate of Enforcement
Case No.: WP 18285/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 283
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (August 5) held that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution read with Section 482 CrPC, challenging Enforcement Directorate's search and freezing action under Section 17(1A) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) is maintainable. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 283]
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna thus rejected ED's preliminary objection to a petition moved by gaming company Gameskraft Technologies, against freezing of its bank accounts and investments based on a February 23 ECIR.
ED had contended that the freezing action, under Section 17(1A) PMLA, is exclusively civil in nature and thus not amenable to jurisdiction under Article 226 read with Section 482 of the CrPC/ 528 of BNSS.
Rejecting the argument, the Court today observed that a search under Section 17(1A) of the PMLA is not an independent civil exercise but a continuation of the criminal investigation initiated through an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR).
“…During the pendency of investigation into an offence of money laundering, once viewed in that perspective, the argument that search retains an exclusive civil character loses its force…. This court therefore holds that petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India read with Section 482 of CrPC challenging search and seizure proceedings that emanate from an ECIR is perfectly maintainable. Preliminary objection consequently fails. Issue answered accordingly”, the court noted in the order.
The Court held that the search, seizure and freezing powers under Section 17 are intrinsically linked to the investigation of the offence of money laundering and, therefore, cannot be viewed as having an exclusively civil character.
With the preliminary objection decided against the ED, the Court will now proceed to hear the petitions on merits.
Case Title: M/s Gameskraft Technologies Pvt Ltd & Anr. v. Directorate of Enforcement
Case No: WP 1668/2026 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 284
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday (August 5) held that an Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) can be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution and that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) cannot place it beyond judicial scrutiny by merely describing it as an "internal administrative document". [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 284]
“….The constitutional jurisdiction under Article 226 is neither subservient to statutory classifications nor susceptible to being curtailed by administrative terminology. The power of judicial review is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. It cannot be rendered illusory merely because the foundational document is nomenclatured as an ECIR, instead of an FIR….”, the court said.
The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observations while hearing a plea filed by faming company Gameskraft Technologies.
“…The label attached to a proceeding cannot eclipse its true character. Substance must always prevail over nomenclature. If the consequences are coercive, the scrutiny must be constitutional. If liberty, property and reputation stand imperilled, judicial review cannot be denied at the threshold on a plea of semantics”, the court observed.
Case Title: Shimoga Institute of Medical Sciences v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: WA 675/2026 C/W WP 35404/2025 & WP 15057/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 285
The Karnataka High Court has set aside the revocation of suspension of Dr. Ashwin Hebbar, an Associate Professor accused of sexually harassing his postgraduate students. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 285]
The Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice T M Nadaf also directed disciplinary action against senior officials who, it found, had attempted to protect the doctor, including Mohammed Mohsin, IAS, Principal Secretary, Department of Medical Education, and Dr. Virupakshappa V, Director of the Shimoga Institute of Medical Sciences (SIMS).
The Court was hearing a writ appeal filed by SIMS challenging the order of a Single Judge, as well as a writ petition filed by Dr. Hebbar challenging his transfer from SIMS to the Haveri Institute of Medical Sciences.
Describing the doctor in strong terms, the Bench observed, “…Dr. Ashwin Hebbar is a wolf in white coat. He must be proceeded not only with the pending disciplinary proceedings expeditiously, but also by the National Medical Commission and if found guilty, his license should be cancelled...”
Quoting the famous doha of Saint Kabir Das to underline the sanctity of the teacher-student relationship, the Court said, “GURU GOVIND DOU KHADE, KAKE LAGUN PAYE? BALIHARI GURU AAPNE, GOVIND DIYO BATAYEIN” [Both the Guru and God are standing before me; at whose feet should I bow? Glory be to the Guru, for it is he who revealed God to me]
Case Title: Miss Dayeena Banu v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Case No: Criminal Petition No. 2169 of 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 286
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered against an advocate accused of demanding ₹50 lakh from the mother of a murder accused by allegedly claiming that the money would be paid to a High Court judge to secure bail. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 286]
Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that allegations involving demands for money in the name of a judge transcend an ordinary cheating case and become an issue of "institutional integrity"
“…in such cases investigation is a must as the question involved is Institutional integrity. The offence of cheating allegedly committed by an individual in the normal circumstance becomes an institutional concern when such cases are projected. Therefore, there can be no question of interdiction of investigation on any ground whatsoever unless investigation would ensue and a final report is filed before the concerned Court…”, the court observed in its order.
The Court dismissed the petition filed by advocate Dayeena Banu seeking quashing of the FIR registered against her under Section 318(4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), holding that the allegations prima facie disclose the offence of cheating and warrant investigation.