Karnataka High Court Fines Woman Cop ₹1 Lakh Who Suppressed Order Directing FIR Over Allegedly Kicking Lady Advocate To Seek Stay On Probe

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (June 9) imposed cost of Rs. 1 Lakh on a female cop for suppressing the existence of an earlier order directing registration of an FIR against her for allegedly "kicking" a lady advocate, when she had approached the vacation bench recently in order to seek a stay of probe.

The court said that the petitioner had not disclosed the earlier order directing FIR against her before the coordinate vacation bench, which had passed an interim order staying probe in the FIR.

The single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna while dismissing the petitioner's plea for quashing the FIR, in his order noted:

“…. The petitioner [SI] comes to the Police Station and boots the complainant [lady lawyer accused of unruly conduct in another case] …. all of this is captured in CCTV and this court's order in Crl P. 3695/2026. Pursuant to the registration of crime, apart from departmental enquiry, criminal proceedings are initiated against the police officer. A separate Crl P 7311/2026 comes to be filed by the police officer and an interim order of stay on further investigation is granted by the coordinate [vacation] bench of this court…

Not a whisper about the order passed by this court pursuant to which the crime is registered is made in the pleadings before the coordinate bench. Suppressing the very foundation of registration of the crime, petitioners approach the coordinate[vacation] bench and an order is passed by this court. Therefore, this petition deserves to be dismissed…. but an exemplary cost of Rs 1 lakh should be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority…. Result of investigation to be placed before this court prior to its filing before the trial court…”

The petitioner had sought quashing of FIR lodged under BNS Sections 115(2) [voluntarily causing hurt] , 118(1)[ Voluntarily Causing Hurt by Dangerous Weapons or Means], 74 [Word, Gesture or Act Intended to Insult the Modesty of a Woman], 352[Criminal Intimidation], 351(2) [Intentional Insult with Intent to Provoke Breach of Peace].

On 17.04.2026, the High Court had while considering an FIR quashing plea filed by a lady advocate ((in Nabonita Sen v. State of Karnataka Crl P 3695/2026) for her unruly behaviour inside the police station post a road rage incident, had viewed the CCTV footage from the station.

The CCTV footage, which the Court viewed, revealed that the Sub-Inspector repeatedly kicked the petitioner advocate, seemingly in response to the latter throwing out some papers and files on the desk.

After seeing the footage, the court instructed that a criminal case be registered against the erring police officer too for beating the lady lawyer. “It would be a travesty of justice for such actions to be met with only a perfunctory departmental enquiry”, the court had noted in the lawyer's petition.

Today the court said that the aforesaid order was suppressed by the police officer when she instituted a fresh criminal petition for quashing the charges against her before a coordinate vacation bench on 21.05.2026.

During the hearing today the court orally said,"You have hit an advocate with boots and there is CCTV footage… and you suppress it[registration of crime pursuant to court order] in the petition and approach the vacation bench to secure a stay. I will impose costs of Rs 5 lakhs...Not a whisper about the order passed by this court pursuant to which the crime is registered is made in the pleading. Suppressing the very foundation of registration of crime, the order passed by this court".

“…Why have you not pleaded it? Is it not suppression? …. Simply went and booted her. Which law empowers you to behave like that? Why did this lady put her boots on the lawyer?" the court orally asked.

Noting that it had itself viewed the CCTV footage the court orally said "If you are really fair, you would have pleaded and taken an interim order… not by suppressing my order…This order would not have come at all if you had annexed my order and told the coordinate bench. No court would have stayed it. Not a whisper is there. So dismissing it with exemplary cost".

The court directed that the cost be paid to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority (KLSA) within eight weeks.

Case Title: Padmavathi T B v. State of Karnataka

Case No: CRL.P 7311/2026