LiveLaw Karnataka High Court Weekly Round Up: September 28 - October 04, 2026
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 382 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 402NOMINAL INDEXPratap N M v. State of Karnataka,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 382MALA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 383SRI SURESH @ SURESH NAIK K VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 384DR. ASHWIN HEBBAR K VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 385T G BALAN & ANOTHER VS STATE OF...
Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 382 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 402
NOMINAL INDEX
Pratap N M v. State of Karnataka,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 382
MALA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 383
SRI SURESH @ SURESH NAIK K VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 384
DR. ASHWIN HEBBAR K VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 385
T G BALAN & ANOTHER VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 386
U VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 387
X v Y,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 388
X & another v Rajesh, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 389
Union of India & Ors. v. Mohsin Sharieff & Ors. 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 390
Juhi vs Union of India & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 391
AISHWARYA @ ISHWARYA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 392
SANTHOSH KUMAR H.L & OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 393
RAMESH BABU N v/s STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 394
SURAJ REVANNA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 395
X v/s Y ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 396
MURALI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA , 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 397
SHRIDHAR & ANOTHER VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 398
State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Vemanna G., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 399
Sri Priyank M. Kharge v. Sri Tejas A & Connected Matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 400
DR.BHIMASHANKAR BILGUNDI VS DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT& OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 401
Amrita M v. State of Karnataka & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kart) 402
JUDGMENTS/ORDERS
Case Title: Pratap N M v. State of Karnataka
Case No: CRL.P 469/2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 382
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR registered against a science educator and YouTuber, Pratap N M, who runs the channel 'Drone Prathap', over a video demonstrating the reaction of sodium with water. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 382]
The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj opined that though it does not endorse the manner in which the experiment was conducted, the act was 'educative' and not 'malicious'.
“….As indicated above, though this Court does not condone or commend the actions taken by the petitioner, the fact remains that it is not a malicious action but only an educative action on the part of the petitioner, which should not require such an educator to go through the ordeal of a criminal investigation thereafter….”, the court noted in the order.
Case Title: MALA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS
Case No: WRIT PETITION (HABEAS CORPUS) NO.100019 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 383
The Karnataka High Court has held that the failure to inform a detenu of their right to make a representation to the Central Government under Prevention of Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act 1988 seeking revocation of detention order, violates safeguard under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 383]
A Division Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna and Justice Hema Kulkarni at Dharwad quashed a preventive detention order issued against a person, observing that preventive detention cannot be converted into a “parallel mechanism for cancellation of bail.”
“If the statute confers upon the Central Government, the power to revoke an order of detention, the detenu must necessarily have an effective opportunity to invoke that power by making a representation. A right to make a representation, if kept beyond the knowledge of the person whose liberty is taken away, would be a right existing only on paper. The right becomes real and meaningful only when the detenu is made aware that such a representation can be made and to whom it can be made,” the High Court said.
It added, “If the Detaining Authority fails to communicate to the detenu his right to make such a representation to the Central Government seeking revocation of the order of detention, the failure is not a mere procedural aberration capable of being brushed aside as inconsequential. It cuts at the very root of the constitutional safeguard engrafted under Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India and renders the continued detention constitutionally vulnerable.”
Case Title: SRI SURESH @ SURESH NAIK K v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.111 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 384
The Karnataka High Court has held that mere knowledge of where valuable articles are kept, coupled with general suspicion, cannot form the basis of a criminal prosecution for theft, while quashing an FIR registered against a man under Section 305 BNS. .[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 384]
Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that when different complaints made by family members disclose materially contradictory versions regarding missing gold articles, then allowing investigation to continue against the petitioner would amount to an abuse of the process of law.
“The petitioner is sought to be implicated essentially on the ground that he was aware of where the gold articles were kept and had access to the house. Mere knowledge of the place where articles are kept, coupled with a general suspicion, cannot by itself constitute the basis for a criminal prosecution for theft, particularly when the material already on record discloses a completely different circumstance in which substantial quantities of gold were allegedly handed over to the petitioner,” the Court said.
Internal Committee's Closure Report Not Enough To Close Sexual Harassment FIR: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: DR. ASHWIN HEBBAR K VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 18058 OF 2022
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 385
The Karnataka High Court has held that an Internal Committee's report following an inquiry into a sexual harassment complaint cannot, by itself, result in the closure of a criminal case involving a cognizable offence. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 385]
Justice V Srishananda observed that since the offence under Section 354A of the Indian Penal Code is cognizable, the Internal Committee's proceedings and report would not be sufficient to close the criminal case unless a police investigation takes place.
As per the facts, the complainant was working as a Junior Resident under the petitioner in the Department of General Surgery, wherein the petitioner was working as a Assistant Professor. She alleged that she was sexually harassed by the petitioner. The matter was referred to Internal Local Committee and it was closed. However a complaint was lodged based on which police registered the case under Section 354A IPC against which petitioner approached the high court.
Case Title: T G BALAN & ANOTHER VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 991 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 386
The Karnataka High Court refused to quash an FIR registered against two persons–one of whom allegedly posed as an advocate–accused of cheating a widow of over Rs 21 Lakh on the promise of resolving her property litigation, holding that the allegations disclosed a criminal element and could not be dismissed as a purely civil matter. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 386]
Justice Suraj Govindaraj, while dismissing the petition filed by the accused, directed the police to conduct a “proper and in-depth investigation” into the case.
Observing that the petitioners failed to fulfil their promise of resolving the complainant's property litigation and that one of them was later found not to be an advocate, the High Court said, “This conduct would be required to be examined during the course of investigation to ascertain whether accused no.1 had represented that he was an advocate and whether he is an advocate or not since such a conduct would not only have a bearing on the present matter would also have bearing on the judicial system as a whole, where litigants depend on the judicial system for proper adjudication of their matters in a manner known to and in accordance with law.”
Case Title: U VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
Case Number: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.220 OF 2018 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.8868 OF 2017
CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 387
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a man accused by his estranged wife of sexually assaulting their minor daughter, holding that the complaint was a “classic example of afterthought and for personal vengeance against the husband.”[ 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 387]
Justice H.P. Sandesh noted that the criminal complaint under the POCSO Act was filed only after the wife's application seeking temporary injunction against a family court order granting interim custody to the father was rejected.
The High Court observed that neither the complaint filed by the mother nor the communication from NIMHANS disclosed that the child was subjected to molestation.
“The court has to take note of the contents of the complaint wherein there is no allegation that the child was subjected to molestation by the father. No doubt, the statement of victim girl was recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C wherein a statement is made that father had taken her forcibly to the Chennai and subjected to such act. The same is not found in the contents of the complaint filed by the mother and that complaint was even dated 23.03.2017 and there is inconsistency in the contents of the complaint as well as the statement made before the Magistrate and child was also in the custody of the mother and it appears to be tutored,” the Court said.
CASE TITLE: X v/s Y
CASE NUMBER: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101273 OF 2021 (FC) C/W MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 101274 OF 2021
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 388
The Karnataka High Court has held that the requirement of producing a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 for admitting electronic evidence such video recordings stored in CDs is not mandatory in proceedings before Family Courts.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 388]
The Division Bench of Justice M.I. Arun and Justice Raghavendra Seetharam Srivatsa held that Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 overrides the Evidence Act provisions regarding the relevance and admissibility of documents.
“It is clear from a reading of Section 14 that the Family Court may receive any document as evidence that may, in its opinion, assist it to deal effectually with a dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Evidence Act,” the Court said.
Case Title: X & another vs Rajesh
Case No: REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 100065 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 389
The Karnataka High Court has held that a claim for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC cannot be denied to a wife merely because her earlier claim for permanent alimony was rejected in divorce proceedings, or on the grounds that she holds an educational qualification that might allow her to earn a livelihood.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 389]
Justice Dr. Chillakur Sumalatha allowed the revision petition filed by a wife against a family court order that had granted maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC only to the couple's minor child while rejecting her claim.
“In the proceedings initiated under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Hubballi, gave a finding that petitioner No.1 is not entitled for maintenance from respondent as her claim for Rs.10,00,000/- towards permanent alimony was rejected and that she has not challenged that order. It was also observed that Petitioner No.1 whose educational qualification is M.A. may earn for her livelihood,” the Court observed.
It added, “It is not the case of even respondent that petitioner No.1 is a working woman. Thus, only because she holds M.A. degree, maintenance cannot be denied to her. Also as earlier indicated, permanent alimony was not granted to petitioner No.1 only because she failed to establish the financial capability and status of the respondent/husband. Therefore, this Court is of the view that Family Court ought not to have rejected her claim for maintenance in the proceedings initiated by her under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Therefore, this Court is of the view that petitioner No.1 is entitled to claim maintenance from respondent/husband.”
Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Mohsin Sharieff & Ors.
Case No: WA No. 1929 of 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 390
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a single judge bench's order which had directed the revenue entries in favour of a private claimant over a few acres of land in Yelahanka, which the Defence Ministry claimed was acquired in 1943 for the Air Force Station's aircraft taxi track. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 390]
The Division Bench of Justice D K Singh and Justice H Shanthi Bhushan noted that the Military Land Register is conclusive proof of title. Invoking the maxim 'nemo dat quod non habet', the court opined that a 2015 court commissioner-executed sale deed could not convey title over land acquired by the Defence Ministry in 1943.
“…. after several decades, an attempt has been made to create a private title over the very same land and to assert rights against the Defence authorities. However, such an attempt has not escaped the scrutiny of this Court. After the acquisition, the land was utilised for the purposes of the Indian Air Force and compensation was paid to the original land owner. It is a classic case of 'nemo dat quod non habet'—no person can convey a better title than what he himself possesses. The Military Land Register is an official document and a conclusive document insofar as defence land is concerned….”, the court noted in the order.
SC, ST, OBC Reservation Cannot Be Applied To NRI Quota Seats: Karnataka High Court
Case Title : Juhi vs Union of India & others
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 107372 OF 2026 (EDN-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 391
The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court has held that the reservation for Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST) or Other Backward Class (OBC) cannot be applied to the Non- Resident Indian quota in the NEET-UG counseling process.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 391]
The Division Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna and Justice Hema Kulkarni rejected a petition filed by an 18-year-old NEET-UG candidate seeking directions allowing her to retain her OBC status during the ongoing NEET-UG counselling process, despite having applied as an NRI (sponsored) candidate.
The Bench noted that the NRI seats are reserved under the unreserved category, and a candidate can opt only for one type of reservation during counseling.
“The NRI quota is a separate quota and 15% of the seats are reserved for NRIs. The nuances of such reservation are found in the brochure that is notified in terms of law, which clearly indicates that NRI can only be under the unreserved category,” the Court said.
Case Title: AISHWARYA @ ISHWARYA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13991 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 392
The Karnataka High Court has granted anticipatory bail to BJP MLA B. Suresh Gowda's daughter who is accused of assaulting a woman Police Sub Inspector (PSI) at Maramma temple in Arathi Ukkada.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 392]
Allowing the petition seeking anticipatory bail, Justice S Vishwajith Shetty noted that the incident took place on the spur of the moment, the petitioner and her father had already issued an unconditional public apology, she had no prior criminal antecedents, and she had undertaken to cooperate with the police in the investigation.
“The material on record would go to show that the petitioner is the daughter of MLA and her husband is a serving Deputy Superintendent of Police… Learned Senior Counsel has produced material before this Court which would prima facie go to show that petitioner as well as her father have tendered unconditional apology publicly for the untoward incident that had taken place on 12.08.2026,” the High Court observed.
Case Title : SANTHOSH KUMAR H.L & OTHERS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 39 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 393
The Karnataka High Court held that an assault on the abdomen of a woman, who was stated to be in an advanced stage of pregnancy, cannot fall outside ambit of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC merely because no visible injury was recorded in the medical certificate or because both the mother and baby are currently healthy. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 393]
Justice Anant Ramnath Hegde was hearing the petition filed by four people charged with the offences punishable under Sections 498A (Cruelty by Husband or Relatives), 307, 324 (Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means), 323 (Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace) and 34 (Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 (penalty for giving and demanding dowry) of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, seeking to quash proceedings against them.
“Since, it is not in dispute that, at the time of the alleged incident, the victim was in an advanced stage of pregnancy. Thus, the alleged assault on the abdomen by the petitioners cannot be said to be an act which is outside the purview of Section 307 of the IPC. Merely because there is no injury forthcoming in the medical certificate that, by itself, cannot be a reason to say that the case is out of the ambit of Section 307 of the IPC,” the High Court said.
Case title: RAMESH BABU N v/s STATE INFORMATION COMMISSION & Ors.
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 13373 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 394
The Karnataka High Court has issued a slew of directions to the State Information Commission to prescribe a uniform format for the collection, maintenance and disclosure of information relating to the implementation of the RTI Act by public authorities in the State.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 394]
The petitioner an RTI applicant had sought names of the Public Information Officer or Public Information Officers against whom penalty had been imposed under Section 20(1), the amount of penalty imposed and the amount recovered pursuant to such penalty.
For context, Section 20 prescribes the penalty imposed on PIOs who refuse to receive application seeking information within the time specified or malafidely denied the request for information or knowingly give incorrect, incomplete or misleading information or destroy information which was the subject of the request or obstruct in any manner the furnishing of information.
Case Title : SURAJ REVANNA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER
Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION No.2796 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 395
The Karnataka High Court has held that arraying a person as an accused under Section 319 CrPC is not a “frolicsome act” and must be supported by cogent evidence that establishes a much stricter degree of satisfaction than a prima facie case.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 395]
Consequently, the High Court quashed a Sessions Court order arraying Member of Karnataka Legislative Council from Janata Dal (Secular) party Suraj Revanna, as an accused in a case for several offences including attempt to murder.
Section 319 of the CrPC, which corresponds to Section 358 BNSS, empowers a court to proceed against and try a person not named as an accused in the chargesheet if, based on the evidence, it appears to the court that the person has committed an offence.
Case Number : REV.PET FAMILY COURT NO. 284 OF 2025
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 396
The Karnataka High Court has held that there is no period of limitation for filing a maintenance petition under Section 125 CrPC and such a plea cannot be rejected solely on ground of delay.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 396]
Justice Chillakur Sumalatha set aside a family court order which had dismissed a maintenance petition filed by a wife and her daughter solely on the ground of delay.
The High Court noted that the relevant provision does not mention a time period within which a maintenance plea must be filed, and that such a legitimate right to seek maintenance cannot be deprived merely because the wife or child failed to approach the court immediately upon neglect or refusal by the person bound to maintain them.
Case Title : MURALI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12214 OF 2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 397
The Karnataka High Court has held that once a victim's statement is recorded before a jurisdictional Magistrate under Section 183 BNSS the Investigating Officer (IO) cannot independently record a further statement of the victim.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 397]
“Even if the Investigating Officer had to record the further statement of the victim girl, after her statement was recorded under Section 183 of BNSS, 2023 before the jurisdictional Magistrate, he ought to have produced the victim girl before the jurisdictional Magistrate for recording her further statement and he could not have proceeded to independently record her further statement,” Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty said, while allowing the criminal petition seeking anticipatory bail.
Case Title : SHRIDHAR & ANOTHER VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS
Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 105612 OF 2026 (GM-RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 398
The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court granted one-day parole to two life convicts who wished to marry each other, observing that “moral consciousness cannot overtake the legal entitlement to get married”.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar)398]
Justice M.G.S. Kamal allowed the writ petition filed by the two convicts serving life term, seeking parole to get married. The two petitioners have been convicted for murdering the second petitioner's husband.
“The right to marry, subject to law, cannot be denied merely on the basis of moral considerations when there is no statutory prohibition against the same,” the High Court said.
Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Asfaq v. State of Rajasthan and Others, the Court said, “As held by the Apex Court, one of the acceptable reasons for grant of parole is to ensure that the convict gets an opportunity for rehabilitation and prepares for realignment with society.”
Case Title : State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Vemanna G.
Case Number : CCC No. 484 of 2023 connected with WA No. 1909 of 2025 (KLR-RES)
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 399
The Karnataka High Court set aside a single judge's direction to grant five acres of agricultural land to an ex-serviceman, holding that the amended Rule 8(8) of the Karnataka Land Grant Rules entitles him only to a residential site of 2,400 square feet where Government land is unavailable.
The Court, however, recorded its regret in detail about the current state of affairs. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 399]
A Division Bench of Justices D.K. Singh and H. Shanthi Bhushan observed as below:
“…We pass this order with a heavy heart, as the State does not have five acres of land to be granted to a soldier who has served the nation. The earlier rule providing for the grant of five acres of land to soldiers has since been amended, and under the amended rule, the petitioner is offered only 2,400 square feet of land, which he has declined to accept. We are conscious of the services and sacrifices rendered by the petitioner to the nation. Nevertheless, in view of the amended rule, we are, with an unwilling mind and a deep sense of regret, constrained to pass the present order in accordance with the prevailing legal position…"
The respondent (petitioner before single judge) was an ex-serviceman whom, as a landless person, applied for the grant of 5 acres in 2000, had applied in 2000 for grant of five acres of Government land in Magudi Taluk of Ramanagara District, under the ex-servicemen quota contemplated by the Karnataka Land Grant Rules.
In 2001, the said request was rejected with the reasoning that no such government land was available for grant in the Magadi Taluk of Ramanagara. A further representation in 2020 was also rejected by the District's Deputy Commissioner that year itself. Aggrieved, the petitioner moved a writ petition before the single judge's bench.
Case Title : Sri Priyank M. Kharge v. Sri Tejas A & Connected Matters
Case Number : CRL.P 13980/2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 400
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (October 1) declined to entertain petitions filed by Karnataka Home Minister Priyank M. Kharge and Congress leader Mohammed Haris Nalapad, challenging the criminal defamation proceedings initiated against them over alleged remarks against the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 400]
The Single Bench of Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde directed Kharge and Nalapad to approach the jurisdictional Sessions Court by way of a criminal revision petition, holding that an equally efficacious alternate remedy was available to them.
The Court was hearing petitions challenging the June 27, 2026 order passed by the Bengaluru Special Court for cases against sitting and former MPs and MLAs, whereby cognizance was taken of an offence under Section 356 BNS against Kharge and Nalapad.
Case Title: DR.BHIMASHANKAR BILGUNDI VS DEPUTY DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT& OTHERS
Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.10143 OF 2026 (GM - RES)
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 401
The Karnataka High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition challenging an order confirming attachment of properties under the PMLA despite the predicate offence having been quashed.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 401]
The Court held that since the PMLA constitutes a “complete Code” providing a hierarchy of authority and remedies, and while Article 226 petition is maintainable against attachment order however its entertainability is left to judicial discretion.
The High Court was hearing a writ petition filed by Dr. Bhimashankar Bilgundi, former President of the Hyderabad Karnataka Education (HKE) Society, who, along with others, was accused of siphoning over Rs 81 crore from postgraduate medical students. The proceedings for the predicate offence, registered under several provisions of the Indian Penal Code, were quashed by the High Court. Despite this, Adjudicating Authority under PMLA passed an order confirming attachment of his properties by the Enforcement Directorate (ED).
Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that a petition under Article 226 read with Section 528 of BNSS is maintainable against an order of attachment, however, its entertainability remains purely a matter of judicial discretion.
“It is no doubt true that the petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the BNSS, against the order of attachment would be maintainable. But, its entertainability is entirely discretion at the hands of this Court,” the High Court said.
Case Title : Amrita M v. State of Karnataka & Ors
Case Number : CRL.P No. 4343 of 2026
CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 402
The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed criminal proceeding for outraging the modesty of a woman, against two person accused of body-shaming and verbally abusing the complainant, noting that body shaming alone does not by itself constitute offence of outraging a woman's modesty under Section 509 IPC. [ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 402]
Section 509 states that whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen, by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished.
The single judge bench of Justice S.R Krishna Kumar while quashing the proceedings against two accused women said:
"...a perusal of the complaint, FIR, charge sheet material including the statements of the complainant and the witnesses is sufficient to come to the conclusion that the same do not disclose or contain the necessary ingredients constituting the offence of Section 509 IPC as alleged by the respondents; it is also pertinent to note that having regard to the mandatory ingredients required to constitute an offence under Section 509 IPC, merely because the petitioners and accused No.3 are said to have body-shamed the complainant and insulted her about her physical appearance, it cannot be said that the material on record discloses the commission of the offence punishable under Section 509 IPC….”, the court noted that the prima facie ingredients of the offence alleged was not met.