Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 100 - 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 106Nominal CitationMohammed Mujashsim v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 100Emeka James Iwoba @ Austin Noso Iwoba & Anr v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 101X v. State & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 102M/S. ND Developers Private Ltd & Ors. v. Ritesh Raushan, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 103Binoj P J v. State of Karnataka,...
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 100 - 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 106
Nominal Citation
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
Judgments/Orders
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.
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.
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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.