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

J SHIVAKUMAR VS CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 403

X v/s Y, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 404

X v. Y, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 405

T VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 406

Mohammed Tufail K. & Ors. v. State by Cubbon Park Police & Anr ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 407

L v. M, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 408

A v. M, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 409

MANJUNATH VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 410

Byju Raveendran v. Pankaj Srivastava,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 411

ATUL KUMAR SABARWAL @ MADHUGIRI MODI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 412

L (Minor) Rep. By Her Natural Guardian Father Ningegowda v. State of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 413

X VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 414

Anu Guest House and Restaurant v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (C/W connected matter), 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 415

Mohammed Ayan v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 416

State of Karnataka v. Srinivasa B.N. & Ors. (and connected matters), 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 417

State of Karnataka through Terakanambi Police v. Sri Paramesha & Ors, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 418

KARNATAKA TEXTILE MILLS ASSOCIATION & ANOTHER VS GARMENT AND TEXTILE WORKERS UNION (R) & OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 419

SRI NAGARAJA V VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 420

ANJANEYALU VS STATE OF KARNATAKA, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 421

ROBIN KHANDELWAL VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, SRIKRISHNA RAMESH @ SRIKI VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 422

SANJAY, PATIL VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 423

PRITESH BARI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 424

SRI MAHABALESHWAR AND ANOTHER VS. SRI MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 425

X v. State of Karnataka,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 426

MAHENDRA KUMAR MITRA VS SECRETARY, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 427

Mubarak Shariff & Ors. v. State by K.R. Pet Rural Police & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 428

The Doctor Chinmaya Mission Hospital & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 429

ZAINUL ABDEEN VS STATE OF KARNATAKA,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 430

SATTEPPA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 431

THE PRESIDENT SHRI VISHNUMURTHY TEMPLE KALENJA VS THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENT FUND & OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 432

B v. Smt. A , 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 433

MR VIVEK M NARAYAN VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER , 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 434

X v/s Y, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 435

M/S.WELLNESS FOREVER CHEMISTS AND LIFESTYLE STORE VS ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER - 3(P) AND LICENSING AUTHORITY , 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 436

Arnab Goswami AND State of Karnataka and Anr & Amit Malviya AND State of Karnataka and Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 437

Abdul Samad & Anr. v. State by Vitla Police Station, Dakshina Kannada District, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 438

Nagendrappa T v. State of Karnataka ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 439

Amit Malviya v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 440

State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Yogesh K & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 441

SRI. B.R. RAMAKRISHNA VS UNION OF INDIA, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 442

SMT. SANGAMMA VS MANAGER, RAJIV GANDHI VASATI ABHIVRUDHI NIGAMA & OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 463

N.SURESH NAIK VS MANIKYAM.K & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 464

SMT DRAKSHAYINI @ GIRIJA & ANOTHER VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE SHIMOGA & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 465

BHARATH REDDY & ANOTHER VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT MINISTRY OF FINANCE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 466

SUSHEEL MONDAL & OTHERS VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 467

Sri Basanagouda R. Patil (Yatnal) v. State of Karnataka & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 468

MR CHANRDASHEKHAR GUPTA ALIAS & ANOHER VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 469

S v/s R, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 470

V v/s S, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 471

Mohammadabbas Naushadali Patel & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 472

Y v. State of Karnataka & Anr,  2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 473

 R v. State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 474

Ashok S/o. Bhimappa Rangapur v. State of Karnataka & Another, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 475

X v/s STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 476

Shri Chikkarevanna v. The State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 477

S.D. VIJAYA KUMAR & ANOTHER VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 478

P VS L, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 479

SMT.KIRTHI S.SARASWATHI & ANOTHER VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 480

JUDGMENTS/ORDERS

'State Doesn't Have 5 Acres For Soldier Who Served Nation': Karnataka High Court Laments In Ex-Serviceman's Plea For Grant Of Land

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.

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Entertain Priyank Kharge, Haris Nalapad's Pleas Against RSS Defamation Case; Directs Them To Sessions Court

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.

ED Attachment Of Property Can Be Challenged Under Article 226, But Entertaining Writ Is Court's Discretion: Karnataka High Court

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.

Body Shaming Woman's Physical Appearance Is Not Offence Of Insulting Modesty Under Section 509 IPC: Karnataka High Court

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.

State Bar Council Can't Reject Lawyer's Enrolment Solely For Lack Of Bachelor's Degree Without Referral To BCI: Karnataka High Court

Case Title : J SHIVAKUMAR VS CHAIRMAN, KARNATAKA STATE BAR COUNCIL & ANOTHER

Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 16895 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 403

The Karnataka High Court has held that State Bar Council cannot reject a lawyer's enrolment solely on the ground of lacking a Bachelor's Degree before undertaking a 3-year LL.B. course, without first referring the matter to Bar Council of India (BCI) to examine whether any alternative qualification, such as a Master's Degree, meets the criteria for enrolment.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 403]

Referring to Rule 4(a) of the Legal Education Rules, 2008, which defines a three-year law course as one undertaken after obtaining a Bachelors' Degree in any discipline of studies from a university or any other qualification considered equivalent by the Bar Council of India, Justice Suraj Govindaraj said,

“The use of the expression 'or any other qualification considered equivalent by the Bar Council of India' is significant. The rule itself therefore contemplates that, in an appropriate case, a qualification other than a conventional Bachelor's Degree may be considered equivalent for the purpose of undertaking the three-year law course.”

Husband Paying Maintenance To Wife Without Court Order Can't Later Claim Inability To Pay: Karnataka High Court Imposes ₹2 Lakh Fine

Case Title : X v/s Y

Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 24806 OF 2026 (GM-FC)

CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 404

The Karnataka High Court has imposed costs of Rs 2 lakh on a husband challenging an interim maintenance order of Rs 1,10,000 per month granted to his wife, calling his petition a “luxurious litigation” aimed at wasting Court's time.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 404]

Justice Lalitha Kanneganti held that where a husband was already paying Rs 1,03,382 per month to the wife without any Court order, he cannot subsequently claim before the Court that she is capable of earning or that he is unable to pay maintenance.

“In this case, the conduct of the petitioner/husband assumes significance from the fact that according to him, he is paying Rs.1,03,382/- to the wife without any Court order, and according to the wife, as there was a threat that he would not pay, she wanted an order from the Court, and the Court granted Rs.1,10,000/-. That has been questioned by filing the writ petition before the Court,” the Court said.

Earnings From Sale Of Shares Part Of Husband's Income: Karnataka High Court Enhances Monthly Maintenance To ₹1.2 Lakh

Case Title : X v/s Y

Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 5358 OF 2026 (GM-FC) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 4253 OF 2026 (GM-FC)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 405

The Karnataka High Court enhanced the monthly maintenance awarded to the wife and minor son from Rs 50 thousand to Rs 1.2 lakh, while holding that the husband's earnings from the sale of shares form part of his income and should be considered while determining the maintenance, even if such financial gains are variable. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 405]

Justice Lalitha Kanneganti heard two separate petitions filed by a husband and wife against a Family Court order. While the wife sought an enhancement of the interim maintenance granted, the husband challenged the quantum and sought a reduction.

The High Court rejected the husband's contention that the income from stocks amounting to around Rs 28 lakh per annum should not be considered as part of his income as the amount is not same every month.

Opposition To Matrimonial Alliance Not Enough To Book Accused's Family For Abetment Of Rape On Pretext Of Marriage: Karnataka High Court

Case Title : T VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6194 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 406

The Karnataka High Court has held that the mere opposition of family members to a proposed matrimonial alliance cannot, by itself, disclose the ingredients of offences such as rape or abetment against them.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 406]

Consequently, Justice Suraj Govindaraj quashed criminal proceedings against the mother and sister of the principal accused in a rape case, while refusing to quash the proceedings against the man accused of engaging in a physical relationship on a false promise of marriage.

“Criminal liability cannot be fastened merely on the basis of a familial relationship with the principal accused or on the basis of opposition to a matrimonial alliance,” Justice Govindaraj said.

2016 Rohith Vemula Protest: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against 15 Students, Says Assembly Below 250 Persons Didn't Need Permission

Case Title : Mohammed Tufail K. & Ors. v. State by Cubbon Park Police & Anr

Case Number : CRL.P No.6754 of 2020

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 407

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed criminal proceedings against 15 students who were booked for allegedly assembling without permission and obstructing traffic in Bengaluru during a 2016 a protest over the suicide of student Rohith Vemula, who had ended his life over alleged caste discrimination. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 407]

The single judge bench of Justice H.P. Sandesh, while allowing the quashing plea, held that the prosecution had failed to establish the existence of an 'unlawful' assembly as contemplated under the Indian Penal Code.

“...considering the Licensing and Controlling of Assemblies and Public Processions (Bangalore City) Order 2009, if it is assembly of more than 250 persons, it requires permission. In the charge-sheet, nowhere it is stated that which provision they have violated, except invoking Sections 283 and 341 and other offences of unlawful assembly...

The permission is required in Bangalore City if the congregation of more than 250 persons assembling at one place with an intention to conduct the meeting, protest, to hear a public speech including political, social, religious and cultural meetings to which the public have got free access. The allegation made against these petitioners is that they obstructed the free movement of traffic and hence, they were arrested. The charge-sheet is filed only against these petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 15. It is stated in the charge sheet that brought more than 100 to 150 students, but they are not made as accused. In view of the aforesaid proviso, and having regard to the fact that this Court has already considered a similar set of facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that it is a fit case to exercise the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C" the court said.

Wife Spending On Child's Birthday From Her Own Earnings Not Cruelty By Husband: Karnataka High Court

Case Title : L v. M

Case Number : MFA No. 202201 of 2022 (FC)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 408

The Karnataka High Court has held that the mere fact that a wife spent money from her own earnings to celebrate her child's birthday cannot by itself lead to the conclusion that her husband subjected her to cruelty.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 408]

The court pointed out that the wife had not asserted that she requested such financial assistance from the husband on the said occasion.

A Division Bench of Justice R. Devdas and Justice Brungesh M, sitting at Kalaburagi, made the observation, while dismissing the wife's appeal seeking dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty, under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

For context, during cross-examination before the family court, PW-1 (the appellant-wife) had admitted that about one year after the marriage, she gave birth to a child. The said child's birthday was celebrated in a grand manner according to her.

'No Parent Is A Visitor In Child's Life': Karnataka High Court Directs Courts To Use 'Parenting Time' Instead Of 'Visitation' In Custody Cases

Case Title : A v. M

Case Number : WP No. 26598/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 409

The Karnataka High Court has recently directed all Family Courts and courts dealing with Guardianship and Wards matters in the State to substitute the term 'visitation' with 'parenting time' during judicial proceedings. The court reasoned that the former term carries an unfortunate suggestion that one parent is merely a 'guest' in the child's life.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 409]

The single judge bench of Justice Lalitha Kanneganti underscored that no parent is a visitor in the life of a child.

“….Courts often use the word "visitation" to describe the time the child spends with a parent who is a non-custodial parent. The term is familiar, but it carries an unfortunate suggestion that one parent is part of the child's life while the other merely visits. A child should not be made to understand the relationship through the word 'visitation', which is used for someone who arrives and leaves as a guest….”, the court said.

Can't Invoke SC/ST Act Against 'Stranger' In Absence Of Specific Intent: Karnataka High Court Quashes Atrocity FIR Against Cameraman

Case Title : MANJUNATH VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 11821 OF 2023 (GM-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 410

The Karnataka High Court has held that the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot be invoked against a stranger who lacks any specific intent with regard to the offences under the Act.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 410]

Justice V. Srishananda quashed the criminal proceedings against a cameraman working with a media agency, observing that filming a public COVID-19 vaccination drive where an individual or woman is accidentally captured does not per se amount to an obscene capturing of the image.

“Admittedly, petitioner had visited the place of incident for the purpose of covering the vaccination program and there was no premeditation. While so filming, per chance if the petitioner has filmed the alleged lady while taking the vaccination, it would not per se amount of obscene capturing of the image,” the Court said.

It added, “Moreover, as is rightly contended by the petitioner, petitioner being the stranger, invoking the provisions of SC/ST Act is totally uncalled for. There is no other material on record apart from the complaint averments to proceed against the petitioner herein. Thus, a case is made out that continuation of the proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law.”

The case stemmed from a complaint filed by the second respondent in 2022, wherein it was alleged that the petitioner, working as a cameraman with Bengaluru One News, abused the complainant and a woman using her caste name.

Byju Raveendran Withdraws Contempt Plea Before Karnataka High Court Against Byju's Interim Resolution Professional Over CoC Meeting

Case Title : Byju Raveendran v. Pankaj Srivastava

Case Number : CCC 184/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 411

Byju Raveendran and other suspended directors of Think & Learn, the parent company of ed-tech platform Byju's, have withdrawn their contempt petition against interim resolution professional Pankaj Srivastava before the Karnataka High Court.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 411]

The petition alleged that Srivastava wilfully disobeyed the High Court's October 2024 orders by calling for a Committee of Creditors (CoC) meeting on February 12, 2025, despite the interim restraint on further CoC meetings.

During the hearing, the division bench of Justice Jayant Banerji and Justice N.V Bhavani noted that the petition did not state that the CoC [Committee of Creditors] meeting was actually held or specify the date on which it was held.

Doesn't Outrage Religious Feelings: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Over Facebook Post Using Term 'Jihadi'

Case Title : ATUL KUMAR SABARWAL @ MADHUGIRI MODI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS

Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 22820 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 412

The Karnataka High Court has held that use of the term 'jihadi' in a Facebook post would not attract the offences of outraging religious sentiments or publishing statements intended to promote enmity between different religious communities.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 412]

In doing so the court quashed an FIR against a Facebook user accused of hurting sentiments of Muslim community by posting a social media post, holding that the contents of the message did not attract the offences under Sections 295A and 505(2) IPC.

Section 295A punishes deliberate and malicious acts intended to outrage the religious feelings of any class of citizens. Section 503(2) punishes making, publishing, or circulating statements, rumors, or alarming news intended to promote feelings of enmity, hatred, or ill-will between different religious, racial, language, regional groups, castes, or communities.

Karnataka High Court Allows Minor To Change Name For Astrological Beliefs

Case Title : L (Minor) Rep. By Her Natural Guardian Father Ningegowda v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Case Number : Regular First Appeal No. 703 of 2026 (DEC/INJ)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 413

The Karnataka High Court has recently allowed an appeal filed by a minor girl seeking a declaration to change her name from 'Lakshmi N.'to 'Veena N.' in her school records due to numerological & astrological beliefs of her parents, holding that the right to be recognized by one's name is a civil right and that a civil suit for change of name is maintainable.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 413]

The single judge bench of Justice Hanchate Sanjeevkumar set aside the judgment and decree passed by a Bengaluru Civil Court which had dismissed the suit earlier.

“…Every person in society is necessarily to be recognized by his/her name. It is a civil right of every citizen in India to be recognized by his/her name. Therefore, for correction or change of name, filing a suit before the Civil Court is maintainable, as it relates to the adjudication of a civil right. Therefore, for change of the name of a candidate, the competent Civil Court has jurisdiction as per Section 9 of CPC…”, the court noted in the order.

The High Court specifically referred to a Circular issued on October 26, 2025 by the state government to the effect that if any person desires to change their name, the name of their parents, or date of birth, such candidate should obtain a decree from the competent Civil Court. Therefore, the parents had correctly filed the suit for declaration, the court opined.

“…It is a simple case of the plaintiff seeking declaratory relief for change of her name from “Lakshmi N.” to “Veena N..”… The Trial Court has simply dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff has not produced any documents to show that her name is “Veena N.”. This reasoning of the Trial Court is unwarranted, as it is not the case of the plaintiff that, at the initial stage, while admitting the plaintiff to the school, her name was wrongly mentioned as “Lakshmi N.”. The plaintiff simply desires to be called as “Veena N.” and not “Lakshmi N. Therefore, there could not have been any occasion to produce any document showing the name of “Veena N.””, the court said in clear terms\

Offence Of Sexual Intercourse On False Promise Of Marriage U/S 69 BNS Doesn't Apply To Women: Karnataka High Court

Case Title : X VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO.10660 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 414

The Karnataka High Court has held that the offence under Section 69 BNS—which penalises sexual intercourse by employing deceitful means or false promises of marriage which does not amount to rape—cannot be invoked against a woman.[2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 414]

Section 69 states that whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, and has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is punishable with a term which can extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine.

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde partially quashed an FIR registered against a woman for the offences under Sections 69, 308 (2) (Extortion), 351(2) (Criminal Intimidation) read with Section 3(5) (Criminal act done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the BNS and under Sections 66E (Violation of Privacy) and 67A (Publishing or transmitting material containing sexually explicit act) of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Hampi Buffer Zone: Karnataka High Court Quashes Demolition Notices After Owners Undertake Not To Carry Out Unlawful Commercial Activities

Case Title : Anu Guest House and Restaurant v. State of Karnataka & Ors. (C/W connected matter)

Case Number : W.P. No. 104270 of 2024 C/W W.P. No. 104274 of 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 415

The Karnataka High Court quashed notices issued by the Commissioner, Hampi World Heritage Area Management Authority (HWHAMA), directing certain homestay operators in Koppal to demolish their structures within 24 hours. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 415]

This, after the petitioners gave an undertaking that they will not carry out any commercial activity contrary to law and agreed to apply for necessary permissions.

The single judge bench of Justice M.G.S. Kamal, sitting at Dharwad, disposed of the petitions, while noting that the petitioners should not carry out any commercial activity in the concerned lands, as specified in their own undertaking.

“…In the light of undertaking given by the counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners would not carry out any commercial activities, the impugned notices issued by the respondent No.3-the Commissioner, HWHAMA are hereby quashed…Petitioners shall make necessary applications before the concerned revenue authorities as well as the authorities under the HWHAMA Act, seeking necessary permission either for the purpose of construction or development of their respective lands or for carrying out any activity permissible under law thereon…”, the court noted in the order.

Karnataka High Court Grants Bail In Section 69 BNS Case, Says Promise To Marry Was Made After Sexual Intercourse

Case Title : Mohammed Ayan v. State of Karnataka

Case Number : Criminal Petition No. 13027 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 416

The Karnataka High Court granted bail to a 26-year-old man accused of sexual intercourse by deceitful means under Section 69 BNS, observing that the complainant's own statement indicated that the alleged promise to marry was made 'after' the physical relationship and not before. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 416]

Section 69 states that whoever, by deceitful means or by making promise to marry a woman without any intention of fulfilling the same, and has sexual intercourse with her, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is punishable with a term which can extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine.

The single judge bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty allowed the petition filed by the accused, who was arrested on July 15, 2026 by the Indiranagar Police Station, Bengaluru.

After noting the complainant's statement, the court said:

“…From a reading of the aforesaid, it is apparent that victim girl knew that petitioner was in a relationship with another girl and subsequently, he had approached her and had sexual intercourse with her. The alleged promise to marry victim girl is after the act of sexual intercourse committed by him…. In the statement made by the victim girl….she has clearly stated that prior to the petitioner making the promise to marry her, he had sexual intercourse.”

No Candidate Can Be Denied MV Inspector Post For Lacking Experience In Non-Existent Petrol HGV/HPV Vehicles: Karnataka High Court

Case Title : State of Karnataka v. Srinivasa B.N. & Ors. (and connected matters)

Case Number : W.P. No. 126/2025 C/W W.P. Nos. 5483/2025 & Ors

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 417

Censuring the irregularities in the recruitment process for Motor Vehicle Inspectors in the state, the Karnataka High Court has rapped the Public Service Commission and the Transport Department for acting unreasonably, and in a manner amounting to a 'travesty of justice'. [2026 LiveLaw(Kar) 417]

The Division bench of Justices R Devdas and K Manmadha Rao noted that the authorities erred by blindly accepting experience certificates issued by State owned transport corporations for inspector recruitments, which claimed experience in repairing Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGV) and Heavy Passenger Vehicles (HPV) fitted with petrol engines, when no such vehicles have existed in India for decades.

“…the acceptance of certificates issued by KSRTC, BMTC and the other State owned Transport Corporations indicating that the candidate has experience in repairs of HGV and HPV petrol vehicles, at the hands of the KPSC/Commissioner of the Transport Department is clearly unreasonable, knowing fully well that for the past several decades there are no petrol vehicles in the category of HGV and HPV in India, the statement made in such certificates issued by the State owned Corporations are a blatant lie. The Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India, has therefore, rightly deleted the said provision, having noticed the anomaly…”, the court noted.

2009 SC/ST Atrocity Case: Karnataka High Court Upholds Acquittal Of 26 Booked For Pulling Down Dr BR Ambedkar's Portrait

Case Title: State of Karnataka through Terakanambi Police v. Sri Paramesha & Ors

Case Number: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1428 OF 2015

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 418

The Karnataka High Court dismissed State's appeal against the acquittal of 26 persons over an incident of pulling down of Dr BR Ambedkar's portrait in Chamarajanagar. [2026 Livelaw (Kar) 418]

Upholding trial court's order, the High Court said that the material contradictions in the eye witness statements, among many other factors had led the trial court to acquit the accused and there was no error in the same.

The single judge bench of Justice G Basavaraja held that there was no legal or factual error in the trial court's decision to extend the benefit of doubt to the accused, on account of material contradictions in the prosecution's case. The trial court had noted that it was unclear as to how the witnesses observed the alleged incident at the spot in the admitted darkness.

“…This Court has carefully examined all the materials placed before this Court. On re-appreciation/reconsideration and re-examination of the entire material on record, I do not find any legal or factual error committed by the trial Court….”, the court noted in the order.

Stakeholder Meetings Can't Substitute Mandatory Publication Of Notification Inviting Objections To Proposed Wage Revision: Karnataka High Court

CASE TITLE: KARNATAKA TEXTILE MILLS ASSOCIATION & ANOTHER VS GARMENT AND TEXTILE WORKERS UNION (R) & OTHERS

Case Number : WRIT APPEAL NO. 1684 OF 2026 (L-MW)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 419

The Karnataka High Court has held that once Section 5(1)(b) of the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 has been invoked, the State cannot dispense with the publication of the proposal for wage revision in Official Gazette and statutory opportunity to file objections merely because the stakeholders had subsequently participated in the meetings.[2026 LiveLaw Kar) 419]

Consequently, the Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan dismissed the appeal filed by two industry associations against a Single Judge order.

That order had quashed the 2023 minimum wage notification for non-compliance with the statutory process under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act and had directed the State to undertake a fresh exercise for the garment industry.

For context, Section 5 of the Act outlines the procedure to fix and revise minimum wages. While Section 5(1)(a) allows the State to appoint committees to enquire and advise regarding these wages, Section 5(1)(b) allows the State to publish its proposal in the Official Gazette and consider suggestions or objections filed by the affected persons. Under the latter provision, the government must consult an advisory board as well.

Filing 'Bald Chargesheet' Without Any Evidence Affects Accused's Right To Life Under Article 21: Karnataka High Court

Case Title : SRI NAGARAJA V VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO.15535 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 420

The Karnataka High Court has held that filing a chargesheet based on omnibus allegations by complainant without any evidence affects the right to life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 420]

“Filing of charge sheet thus affects the individual right of a citizen of the country as is enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, especially when the charge sheet is bald and without any material,” Justice V Srishananda said.

The court further held that a complainant cannot be said to have suffered wrongful loss— an essential requirement to constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)— if the accused derived no financial gain, while allowing the petition filed by one Nagaraja V.

The petitioner sought to quash the FIR and the chargesheet registered against him for the offences punishable under Sections 406, 408, 419, 420 (Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property), 467, 468, 469, 471, 506, 120B (Punishment of criminal conspiracy) of the IPC read with Sections 65 and 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

Wife Fell & Died After Husband Slapped Her: Karnataka High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide

Case Title : ANJANEYALU VS STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 398 OF 2021

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 421

The Karnataka High Court has converted a husband's conviction for murder of his wife under Section 302 Indian Penal Code (IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part II IPC.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 421]

It found that the prosecution could not establish by evidence that the injury suffered by the deceased wife— after being assaulted by her husband and falling down— was “sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death,” but the accused knew his act will likely cause death.

A Division Bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz and Justice B. Pramod partly allowed the appeal filed by the accused, seeking to set aside the trial court order convicting him for murder of his wife.

“The above material on record goes to show that the incident took place in a quarrel and in the said quarrel, the accused slapped the deceased, as a result of which she fell down. As per medical evidence, the deceased has sustained a swelling over the left temporo parietal region,” the Court said.

It added, “The evidence of PW.5 [the doctor who conducted postmortem examination] does not reveal that the said injury was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. However, the accused had the knowledge that the said act committed by him was likely to cause the death. Hence in our considered view, the act committed by the accused would amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304 Part II of IPC.”

Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To 'Hacker' Sriki In Cryptocurrency Scam Case, Says No Immediate Chance Of Trial Completion

Case Title : ROBIN KHANDELWAL VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT, SRIKRISHNA RAMESH @ SRIKI VS DIRECTORATE OF ENFORCEMENT

Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13669 OF 2026, CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 13670 OF 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 422

The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to 'hacker' Srikrishna Ramesh @ Sriki and his accountant Robin Khandelwal in a PMLA case pertaining to alleged cryptocurrency scam, observing that chances of the trial being completed soon were remote given that prosecution documents run into thousands of pages and the case remains at a pre-cognizance stage. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 422]

Reportedly, the ED has alleged laundering of funds generated by Sriki by hacking of multiple cryptocurrency exchanges, poker, and gaming websites. As per reports, ED filed a prosecution complaint against Sriki, hKhandelwal, as well as other accused.

“The present case is at pre-cognizance stage before the Trial Court. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has brought to the notice of this Court that documents in the present case runs upto 8103 pages and 10 charge-sheet witnesses have been cited. Therefore, chances of trial being completed and case being disposed of in the near soon is very remote,” Justice S Vishwajith Shetty said, while allowing the petitions filed by the two men, accused of the offences under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA, seeking regular bail.

Rejecting the respondent's argument that the accused might shift or misuse undiscovered proceeds of crime if enlarged on bail, the High Court noted, “The present case is registered in the year 2021 and petitioners were arrested only on 08.05.2026. If the petitioners or other accused have parked the sale proceeds safely and if they intended to misuse or shift the same, they could have very well done the same before they were arrested in the present case.”

It added, “There is no allegation against the petitioner that they have misused the bail conditions in any one of the cases registered for the predicate offences. Therefore, the apprehension now expressed by the learned Counsel for the respondent as aforesaid, does not appeal to the mind of this Court.”

Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against BJP Leader Over Outraging Woman's Modesty, Says Remarks Were Not Made Against Complainant

Case Title : SANJAY PATIL VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3888 OF 2025

CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 423

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case against former BJP MLA Sanjay Patil over a remark allegedly made against then Women and Child Welfare Minister during the Lok Sabha campaign for the Belagavi constituency in 2024. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 423]

It held that a Congress worker who merely heard the remark was not an “aggrieved person”, and that the statement did not satisfy the ingredients of Section 509 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

“Admittedly, the complainant is not the person against whom the specific statement is made. Therefore, the complainant cannot become an aggrieved person as she has only heard such alleged filthy statement made by the petitioner against her party leader and the statement so alleged cannot become the ingredients of the offence under Section 509 of the IPC,” Justice M. Nagaprasanna said while allowing the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC.

Bank Can't Lodge FIR Against Home Loan Borrower Over Dues Where Builder Shelves Project & Sells Flat To Third Party: Karnataka High Court

Case Title : PRITESH BARI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3230 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 424

The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings against a home loan borrower whose loan stood outstanding because the builder failed to complete the project and sold the flat to a third party, holding that an outstanding loan or failure of an underlying transaction “by itself” cannot be treated as a criminal offence. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 424]

Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed:

“A financial institution, particularly a public sector bank, is expected to act with due care and circumspection before invoking the criminal process against a customer. The existence of an outstanding loan or the failure of the underlying transaction, by itself, cannot be treated as constituting a criminal offence. The circumstances of the present case make the course adopted by the Bank all the more difficult to appreciate. The petitioner has neither obtained the apartment for which the loan was sanctioned nor derived any benefit from its subsequent sale. The petitioner is left without the apartment and without the benefit of the transaction, while the Bank seeks to proceed against him for recovery of the very amount which, under the terms of the tripartite agreement, was contemplated to be recovered from the builder in the eventuality which has, in fact, occurred”.

Karnataka High Court Frames Contempt Charges Against 3 Govt Officials For Wilfully Disobeying Order

Case Title: SRI MAHABALESHWAR AND ANOTHER VS. SRI MANOJ KUMAR AND OTHERS

Case Number: CCC NO. 1148/2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 425

The Karnataka High Court has held that the mere opposition of family members to a proposed matrimonial alliance cannot, by itself, disclose the ingredients of offences such as rape or abetment against them.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 425]

Consequently, Justice Suraj Govindaraj quashed criminal proceedings against the mother and sister of the principal accused in a rape case, while refusing to quash the proceedings against the man accused of engaging in a physical relationship on a false promise of marriage.

“Criminal liability cannot be fastened merely on the basis of a familial relationship with the principal accused or on the basis of opposition to a matrimonial alliance,” Justice Govindaraj said.

Karnataka High Court Closes Minor Rape Survivor's Plea After State Notifies SOP For Early Identification, Timely Response To Underage Pregnancies

Case Title : X v. State of Karnataka

Case Number : W.P. No. 19282 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 426

The Karnataka High Court has recently disposed of a writ petition filed by a 16-year-old survivor of sexual assault who sought medical termination of her pregnancy, after the State notified a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Early Identification and Timely Response to Underage Pregnancies. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 426]

The single judge bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav disposed of the petition filed through the survivor's mother as guardian. The mother had initially sought directions to the Hospital to admit and examine the petitioner, and take necessary medical steps to terminate her pregnancy.

The petitioner, a 16-year-old school student became a victim of sexual assault, and thereafter suppressed the factum of the same to the single mother until the pregnancy couldn't be concealed.

The Court had in July permitted termination of pregnancy subject to the opinion of doctors. The single judge bench had also directed that if the foetus was alive after the procedure, steps were to be taken for its healthy growth.

'50% Ceiling Breached' : Karnataka High Court Strikes Down Law Raising SC/ST Reservation In Education & Govt Jobs

Case Title : MAHENDRA KUMAR MITRA VS SECRETARY & OTHERS

Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 200448 OF 2025 (SC-ST-PIL)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 427

The Karnataka High Court on Monday struck down the provisions of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Reservation of Seats in Educational Institutions and of Appointments or Posts in the Services under the State) Act, 2022, which had increased reservations for Scheduled Castes (SCs) from 15% to 17% and for Scheduled Tribes (STs) from 3% to 7%.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 427]

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha held that the legislation—which pushed the aggregate reservation in the State from 50% to 56%—violates Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution. The High Court ruled that the 50% ceiling limit is a binding rule, and that a mere increase in population or proportional representation does not constitute an "extraordinary circumstance" required to breach this constitutional threshold

Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against 17 Accused Of Provoking Riots Near Dargah, Says No Independent Witnesses Except Cops

Case Title : Mubarak Shariff & Ors. v. State by K.R. Pet Rural Police & Anr

Case Number : WP No: 6999/2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 428

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed the chargesheet against 17 men accused of forming an unlawful assembly near a Dargah and making provocative remarks with the intent to cause riot. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 428]

It was alleged that in the chargesheet that on 27.10.2019, the petitioners formed "an unlawful assembly" near Ghouse Peer Qadri Dargha wherein petitioner no. 1 Mubarak Sharieff stated to be a member of PFI told the assembled people that "power of Islam Religion Organization should be shown by unity and everyone should indulge in illegal activities which would result in paralyzing the social tranquility".

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Doctor, Hospital Management Booked Over Amputation Of Infant's Finger

Case Title : The Doctor Chinmaya Mission Hospital & Anr. v. State of Karnataka & Anr

Case Number : CRL.P. No. 4983 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 429

The Karnataka High Court refused to quash an FIR against management of a hospital and its doctor over alleged accidental amputation of a 6-month-old infant's little finger before discharge, observing that the four-hour period in which infant was kept in emergency ward after the incident needs investigation. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 429]

Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said:

"Prima facie, there is no dispute that the baby was admitted in a hospital for some ailment and she was being treated in the hospital and allegedly the nurse was removing the drip administered to the baby as the doctor had advised for discharge of the baby. However, it appears that while removing the drip administered to the baby, the little finger of the baby is chopped off and the baby was kept in emergency ward for four hours.

Karnataka High Court Quashes Cow Slaughter Case After Police Conduct Raid Before Registering FIR

Case Title : ZAINUL ABDEEN VS STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 593 OF 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 430

The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal proceedings in a cow slaughter case, holding that the police violated the mandatory requirement of registering an FIR before conducting a raid and seizure after receiving information about a cognizable offence. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 430]

Justice Rajesh Rai K held that the failure to register the FIR before undertaking substantial investigative steps, including searches, seizures and recording witness statements, vitiated the proceedings against the accused.

The case arose from a suo motu complaint lodged by a Police Inspector of Hunsur Town Police Station on February 26, 2023. Acting on information about the alleged illegal sale of beef without a licence or permission, the police conducted raids at several shops and godowns in Shabbeer Nagar.

'Serious Allegations': Karnataka High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To Lawyer Accused Of Rape, Caste-Based Abuse

Case Title : SATTEPPA VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

Case Number : CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100390 OF 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 431

The Karnataka High Court refused to grant anticipatory bail to a practicing advocate accused of repeated rape, unnatural sexual assault, and caste-based abuse, observing that the allegations were serious in nature required an investigation.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 431]

The court noted that it was also alleged that there were private videos, Phone pay transactions, financial records, lodge registers, digital photographs, WhatsApp messages, which had to be investigated.

Justice Rajeshwari N. Hegde was hearing a criminal appeal filed by the accused challenging the trial court order that had rejected his anticipatory bail plea.

“Looking into the allegations in the complaint filed by the victim/respondent No.2, as there are serious allegations made against this appellant and having regard to the objections filed by the respondent No. 1 as well the victim/respondent No.2, and looking into the gravity of the offence as it is alleged that, the appellant has committed the offence punishable under Section 376(2)(n), 377 of IPC as well the offences under the SC & ST Act, further it is stated that there are private videos, Phone pay transactions, financial records, lodge registers, digital photographs, WhatsApp messages, all these have to be investigated by the Investigating Officer and further, as the allegation against the accused/appellant is serious in nature, for these reasons this Court is of the opinion that, the accused/appellant is not entitled to grant anticipatory bail,” the High Court said.

Temple Mismanagement: Karnataka High Court Says Subordinate Officer Can't Further Delegate Inquiry Under Hindu Religious Institutions Act

Case Title : THE PRESIDENT SHRI VISHNUMURTHY TEMPLE KALENJA VS THE COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND ENDOWMENT FUND & OTHERS

Case Number : WRIT APPEAL NO. 919 OF 2025 (GM-R/C)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 432

The Karnataka High Court has held that once Commissioner of Religious Institutions and Endowment Fund department authorises a subordinate officer to conduct enquiry over allegations of temple mismanagement under State Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act, then that officer cannot sub-delegate the task.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 432]

Consequently, the Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha set aside the Single Judge order which had held that proceedings regarding the mismanagement of the Shri Vishnumurthy Temple under Section 42 of the Act were not bona fide because they were initiated without any material. The High Court restored the matter to the stage of an enquiry under Section 43(6) of the Act

Wife's Remarriage Material Factor In Determining Permanent Alimony But Not Automatic Bar To Her Entitlement: Karnataka High Court

Case Title : B v. Smt. A

Case Number : MFA No. 1557 of 2023 (FC)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 433

The Karnataka High Court has recently reduced the permanent alimony awarded to a divorced wife from Rs 25,00,000 to Rs 10,00,000, after she remarried during the pendency of the husband's appeal.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 433]

The court observed that alimony cannot be converted into a 'windfall' or a continuing entitlement not affected by subsequent changes in marital and financial circumstances. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 421]

A Division Bench of Justices D K Singh and H Shanthi Bhushan held,

“Alimony Cannot Become a Windfall upon Remarriage. Alimony is intended to secure the financial support and reasonable sustenance of a spouse in appropriate circumstances; it is not a prize, bounty or continuing entitlement divorced from the circumstances in which it was granted….”, the court said in its order.

Pending Partition Suit Doesn't Necessarily Mean Subsequent Criminal Allegations By Family Member Are False: Karnataka High Court

Case Title : MR VIVEK M NARAYAN VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3999 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 434

The Karnataka High Court has held that mere pendency of a partition suit does not, by itself, show that any subsequent criminal allegations are false or manufactured to give the dispute a criminal colour.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 434]

Consequently, Justice Suraj Govindaraj refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, which were initiated on a complaint registered by his paternal uncle alleging assault.

“The pendency of the partition suit may show that there is a pre-existing family dispute between the parties. However, the mere existence of such a dispute does not mean that every subsequent criminal allegation is necessarily false or has been given a criminal colour,” the Court observed.

Karnataka High Court Grants Visitation Rights To Father, Rejects Wife's Plea Over Non-Payment Of Maintenance Amount To Her

Case Title : X v/s Y

Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 103228 OF 2025 (GM-FC)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 435

The Karnataka High Court has allowed a man to meet his 4-year-old child, while rejecting his estranged wife's argument that visitation should be barred due to the non-payment of maintenance amounts due towards her.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 435]

Justice Rajeshwari N. Hegde was hearing a petition filed by the wife challenging a trial court order that had allowed the husband to meet the child twice a month alongside a 10-minute video call from Monday to Friday.

The wife had argued that the husband cannot seek visitation right as he unilaterally bifurcated the maintenance amount of Rs 60,000 and paid only Rs 25,000 toward the child while leaving her portion unpaid.

Drug Licence Can't Be Suspended Along With Show Cause Notice: Karnataka High Court

Case Title : M/S.WELLNESS FOREVER CHEMISTS AND LIFESTYLE STORE VS ASSISTANT DRUGS CONTROLLER - 3(P) AND LICENSING AUTHORITY

Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 30910 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 436

The Karnataka High Court has held that a Show Cause Notice-cum-suspension order suspending a pharmaceutical license can be treated strictly as a Show Cause Notice, observing that an order of suspension or cancelling license can be passed only after licensee is given opportunity to explain why such action should not be taken.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 436]

For context, Rule 66(1) of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945, allows a licensing authority to suspend or cancel a license if the licensee fails to comply with the license conditions or the legislation. To do this, the authority must first give an opportunity to the licensee to show cause why such an order should not be passed.

Karnataka High Court Quashes FIRs Against Amit Malviya, Arnab Goswami Over Congress Party's Turkey Office Claim

Case Title : Arnab Goswami AND State of Karnataka and Anr & Amit Malviya AND State of Karnataka and Anr

Case Number : CRLP 7425 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 437

The Karnataka High Court on Friday quashed the FIRs registered against former BJP IT Cell chief Amit Malviya and Republic TV Editor-in-Chief Arnab Goswami over an alleged false claim made in a television programme that Turkey's Istanbul Congress Centre is the international office of the Indian National Congress.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 437]

A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed the criminal petitions filed by Malviya and Goswami, quashing the proceedings registered under Sections 192 (provocation with intent to cause riot) and 352 (intentional insult to provoke breach of peace) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

Mere Participation In A Protest Can't Be Equated With Participation In Every Connected Offence: Karnataka High Court

Case Title : Abdul Samad & Anr. v. State by Vitla Police Station, Dakshina Kannada District

Case Number : Criminal Petition No. 8032 of 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS))

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 438

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed an FIR registered against two men for allegedly blocking a highway during a protest following a fatal accident, holding that mere participation in a gathering, which was prompted by a genuine grievance, cannot automatically be equated with participation in every offence alleged in connection with it. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 438]

The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed a plea filed by two residents of Bantwala, who sought to quash an FIR registered against them by Vitla Police Station. The offences alleged against the accused were provisions such as Sections 189(2), 189(3), 191(2), 126(2) and 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 relating to unlawful assembly, rioting, wrongful restraint etc.

“…The fact that the protest was prompted by a fatal accident does not, by itself, justify blocking a public highway... A highway is meant for the movement of the public, and preventing vehicles from passing can cause considerable inconvenience and may also affect public safety. The grievance of the villagers could have been brought to the attention of the authorities through other means. The Court does not approve of the method adopted by the protesters… However, the impropriety of the method adopted does not, by itself, establish that every person present at the gathering committed the offences alleged”, the court noted in the order.

Karnataka High Court Directs State To Set Up District-Level Committees To Deal With Illegal Immigrants Within 3 Months

Case Title : Nagendrappa T v. State of Karnataka

Case Number : WP 24641/2026 & connected criminal petitions

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 439

The Karnataka High Court on Friday [October 16] allowed a batch of criminal petitions and quashed the crimes registered against a Bengaluru-based doctor who was arrested on complaints allegedly lodged by illegal Bangladeshi immigrants whom he had helped identify before the authorities.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 439]

While doing so, the court has also directed the State to establish district-level committees to deal with illegal immigrants in terms of the Union Ministry of Home Affairs' Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).

A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the orders in the criminal petitions and the connected writ petition filed by Dr. Nagendrappa T.

The Court, while dictating the operative portion of the order, stated:

“….Criminal petitions are allowed. Crimes registered in... stand quashed. Writ petition stands disposed of with a direction to the State to establish district-level committees to deal with illegal immigrants as directed in the SOP. The said committee shall be put in place within 3 months…”

Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against BJP's Amit Malviya Over X Post On Rahul Gandhi

Case Title: Amit Malviya v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case Number : CRL.P No. 7425 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 440

The Karnataka High Court on Friday [October 16] quashed the FIR registered against Amit Malviya, former in-charge of the National Information & Technology Department of the Bharatiya Janata Party, over his posts on X (formerly Twitter) concerning Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 440]

A Single Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna allowed the criminal petition filed by Malviya, and quashed the proceedings in Crime No. 133/2025 registered by the High Grounds Police Station, currently pending before a Bengaluru Court. [Detailed Order Awaited]

The petitioner BJP leader is stated to have posted an edited photo of Rahul Gandhi (Leader of Opposition in Lok Sabha) on his 'X' handle, and also posted that, despite the clarification given by the DGMO, Rahul Gandhi is speaking the language of Pakistan and its beneficiaries.

Private Aided Educational Institution Employees Can't Claim Monetary Benefits From State For Non-Grant Period: Karnataka High Court

Case Title : State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Yogesh K & Anr.

Case Number : WRIT APPEAL NO. 458 OF 2025 (S-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 441

A Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court comprising Justice D K Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan held that employees of private aided educational institutions cannot claim monetary benefits from the State for the non-grant period.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 441]

The respondent was serving as an Assistant Teacher at W/A Hemavathi High School, which is a private aided educational institution. The Institution was taken in grant-in-aid. Therefore, Assistant Teacher filed a writ petition. He claimed arrears of salary and other monetary benefits from the State for the period preceding the admission of his post in grant-in-aid. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition.

Karnataka High Court Upholds AMASR Act Provisions On Prohibited & Regulated Areas Near Protected Heritage Sites

Case Title: SRI. B.R. RAMAKRISHNA VS UNION OF INDIA

Case Number: WRIT PETITION NO.10451 OF 2018 (GM-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 442

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the constitutional validity of Sections 20A, 20B and 20C of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958, which impose restrictions on construction within prohibited and regulated areas surrounding centrally protected monuments.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 442]

The Court said that the provisions classifying regulated and prohibited areas from the boundary of protected monuments under the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and Remains Act, 1958 (AMASR Act) are not unreasonable and ambiguous, as they further the constitutional mandate of Article 49 (state directive to protect monuments). The Court also ruled that regulation of land utilisation under the Act does not amount to expropriation, and thus compensation cannot be claimed.

Criminal Action Can Be Taken Against Advocates Practising Without Clearing AIBE: Karnataka High Court

Case Title : M. PRASANNA KUMAR VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS

Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO.633 OF 2020

CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 443

The Karnataka High Court has held that an advocate who continues to practice in Courts without clearing the All India Bar Examination (AIBE) within the mandatory two-year period faces criminal liability under both the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 45 of the Advocates Act, 1961.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 443]

The Court further directed the Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) to devise a mechanism which would alert the Council automatically, after the expiry of the two-year period, of such persons who continue to practice illegally.

Justice H.P. Sandesh held that the existence of a disciplinary mechanism under the Advocates Act, 1961, does not exclude the jurisdiction of criminal courts to examine conduct that independently satisfies the ingredients of a criminal offence.

Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Pan Masala Manufacturer In Rs. 42 Crore Health Security & National Security Cess Evasion Case

Case Title : S. Nithyananda v. State of Karnataka

Case Number : Crl. Petition 15746/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 444

The Karnataka High Court has recently granted bail to S. Nithyananda-the proprietor of M/s N Square Enterprises-who was arrested under the newly enacted Health Security and National Security Cess (HSNS) Act, 202 for allegedly evading cess amounting to around 42 crores.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 444]

The single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajith Shetty granted him bail on October 17 [Saturday].

The accused had been in judicial custody since August 20, 2026, following a crackdown by the Directorate General of GST Intelligence (DGGI), Bengaluru Zonal Unit at his factory in Nelamangala, and his residence in Sheshadripuram. According to DGGI, the search of the factory led to the recovery of six undeclared vertical Forms, Fill and Seal (FFS) pouch packing machines, alongside large quantities of raw materials, packaging materials, and finished pan masala goods.

Criticising Supreme Court's Judgment As 'Denial Of Justice' Not Offence : Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Under S.153A, 295A IPC

Case Title : Yaseer Arafat & Ors. v. The State of Karnataka & Anr

Case Number : Criminal Petition 671/2021

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 445

Clarifying the ambit of right to dissent, the Karnataka High Court has recently quashed an FIR registered against 13 persons for allegedly painting slogans on a public wall that criticized a Supreme Court judgment. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 445]

The single judge bench of Justice H.P Sandesh held that merely expressing dissatisfaction with a verdict does not amount to sedition or promoting disharmony.

“…it appears that a voice is raised with regard to judgment of the Apex Court, that too, word used is only denial of justice and raise the voice for justice. When such being the case, it will not attract ingredients of offence under Sections 153A and 295A of IPC, the Court has to take note of discussion made by the Apex Court in the judgment [of Javed Ahmad Hajam v. State of Maharashtra And Another [2024]]… Though the said slogans are against dissatisfaction of the judgment of the Apex Court, while invoking Section 153A, there must be ingredient of sedition against the State…”, the court said.

The court was hearing a plea by the accused seeking the quashment of FIR registered at the Mangalore South Police Station in 2019 and further criminal proceedings. The FIR was lodged for offences punishable under Sections 153A (promoting enmity), 295A (deliberate acts to outrage religious feelings), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, a/w Section 3 of the Karnataka Open Place Disfigurement Act, 1951.

Karnataka High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail To KPSC Member Accused Of Favouring Candidate In KAS Interview

Case Title : Dr. Shantha Hosamani v. State of Karnataka

Case Number : Criminal Petition No. 14766 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 446

Taking a strict stance, Karnataka High Court has denied anticipatory bail to Dr. Shantha Hosamani, a member of the Karnataka Public Service Commission (KPSC), who is accused of receiving illegal gratification to favour a candidate in the KAS examination interview.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 446]

The single judge bench of Justice S. Vishwajith Shetty, while dismissing the petition, observed that the records submitted by the prosecution 'prima facie' indicated that the accused misused her office for unlawful gain.

'Steering Wheel Not A Plaything': Karnataka High Court Sustains Homicide Charge Against Father For Handing Car Keys To Minor Son

Case Title : Shri Nadeem Ur Rehman v. State of Karnataka & Anr

Case Number : Criminal Petition No. 10711 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 447

Coming down heavily on parents letting juveniles drive vehicles illegally, the Karnataka High Court has refused to discharge a father from charges of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, after his 14-year-old son caused a fatal accident. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 447]

The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed that a parent who knowingly hands over the keys to an underage child cannot seek reprieve from criminal consequences, when an untoward incident happens.

“…If a parent consciously places a motor vehicle in the hands of a 14-year-old child, knowing fully well that the child is legally incompetent and manifestly unequipped to drive it upon a public road, the question whether such conduct carries with it the requisite knowledge of likely fatal consequences cannot be foreclosed at the threshold…The alleged positive act is the handing over of the keys and permitting the minor to drive; the alleged knowledge must be gathered from that act, its surrounding circumstances and, importantly, the allegation that such permission had granted repeatedly. Whether this crosses the juridical threshold from gross negligence into culpable homicide is ultimately a matter that must abide the evidence”, the court observed.

Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail To 'Rowdy-Sheeter' In Attempt To Murder Case, Finds No Prima Facie Ground To Believe Guilt

Case Title : SRI PRAFUL BALAKRISHNA PATIL VS STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102226 OF 2026 (438(CR.PC)/482(BNSS)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 448

The Karnataka High Court granted anticipatory bail to a "rowdy-sheeter" accused of several offences including attempt to murder, observing that prima facie there were no reasonable and sufficient grounds at this stage to believe that the petitioner was guilty of the alleged offences.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 448]

Justice Venkatesh Naik T was hearing a criminal petition filed by Praful Balakrishna Patil who was accused of, along with other, assaulting the complainant. When the complainant managed to escape, Patil allegedly fired a bullet at him from his revolver but it did not hit the complainant. Subsequently an FIR was registered against the accused, wherein the petitioner was arrayed as Accused No. 1, for the offences punishable under Sections 109, 126(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2), 351(3), 189(2), 191(2), 191(3) read with Section 190 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Section 25(1-A) of the Arms Act.

Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Journalist Accused Of Impersonating Cop, Planting Drugs To Extort Money

Case Title : MR. KALLAPPA V. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case Number : CRL.P. No. 102409 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 449

The Karnataka High Court has granted regular bail to a journalist, arrested in an extortion and abduction case, where the accused along with co-accused allegedly impersonated police officers, planted marijuana, and extorted money from the complainant. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 449]

Justice Venkatesh Naik T took into account several factors, including the recovery of extorted money, severity of punishment and chances of the petitioner-accused to escape, while allowing the criminal petition.

“On perusal of the material available on record, it appears that the accused persons kidnapped the de facto complainant on the pretext that they would register a case and also on the premise that ganja had been placed in his car. The statement of objections and the material available on record clearly demonstrate that the alleged offences are not punishable with death or imprisonment for life. The petitioner has been in judicial custody. Since the recovery has already been effected, his further detention in judicial custody is not necessary,” the Court said.

Parole Extension Can't Be Rejected Without Reasons: Karnataka High Court Directs Fresh Consideration Of Murder Convict's Plea

Case Title : MAHANTESH ANGADI S/O BASAVARAJ, VS STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 106961 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 450

The Karnataka High Court has quashed an order rejecting parole extension for a convict incarcerated for 18 and a half years in a murder case, directing the authorities to consider his application for 30-day parole extension.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 450]

Justice M.G.S. Kamal observed that the Sections 640 of the Karnataka Prisons and Correctional Service Manual allows grant of general parole for 30 days, which can be extended for another 60 days, while Section 642 of the Act mandates a prisoner to apply for an extension 10 days before the last day of general parole.

The case arose from a suo motu complaint lodged by a Police Inspector of Hunsur Town Police Station on February 26, 2023. Acting on information about the alleged illegal sale of beef without a licence or permission, the police conducted raids at several shops and godowns in Shabbeer Nagar.

Dealer Not Responsible For Substandard Quality Of Fertilizer In Sealed Bag: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR

Case Title : SHRI ALLABHAKSHA M. MAKANDAR VS STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100297 OF 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 451

The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a dealer and supplier of fertiliser, observing that he was not responsible for production of “substandard quality” fertilisers contained in the sealed bags.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 451]

Justice Venkatesh Naik T, while allowing the criminal petition seeking to quash criminal proceedings against the supplier, placed reliance on the Sanjay Gowda v. State of Karnataka (2016) ruling. In this 2016 ruling, it was held that only the officer appointed for compliance with the Fertiliser (Control) Order in a company can be proceeded against for any violation, and not any other officer of the company.

'No Mechanical Arrests': Karnataka High Court Issues Guidelines For Police To Curb Unwarranted FIRs Over Social Media Posts

Case Title : Sri Sandeep Kumar v. State of Karnataka

Case Number : Criminal Petition No. 13010 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 452

The Karnataka High Court has recently quashed an FIR registered against the administrator of an X (formerly Twitter) account, for allegedly promoting communal disharmony by sharing a news report about an incident of stalking in Puttur. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 452]

The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna also censured the police for registering multiple FIRs on the same incident. The court has now issued a slew of guidelines to prevent the mechanical registration of crimes arising from social media posts.

“…. Since crime after crime is registered by the very Police Station on an incident of reporting of a particular act, it is shocking as to how for the asking, the crimes are registered by the jurisdictional police on the same incident without there being any ingredient of crime and without holding any preliminary inquiry… The material placed on record raises two interconnected concerns: the mechanical registration of successive crimes arising from the same incident or social media expression, and the indiscriminate exercise of police powers without adherence to statutory and constitutional safeguards.”, the court noted, by stating that the actions of the police were in contravention of apex court judgments in Satender Kumar Antil and Nalla Balu.

Motor Accident | Vehicle Owner's Lack Of Personal Assets Can't Be A Ground To Deny 'Pay And Recover' Relief: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: MAHESH VS SOMASHEKHAR KR & ANOTHER

Case Number: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 1011/2021 (MV-I

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 453

The Karnataka High Court has held that the financial incapacity or lack of personal assets of an offending vehicle owner cannot be a ground to deny the equitable doctrine of “Pay and Recover” to an innocent third-party victim of a motor accident.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 453]

“The legal proposition in this regard is well settled: even where a fundamental breach of policy conditions is established, such as the rider lacking a valid and effective driving license, the insurer is required in law to satisfy the award in favor of the third party in the first instance, with liberty to recover the amount so paid from the owner,” the Division Bench of Justice D.K. Singh and Justice H. Shanthi Bhushan said.

The Bench further added, “In our opinion, the alleged financial standing or lack of personal assets of the vehicle owner cannot alter this statutory obligation or disentitle the third-party victim from securing the fruits of the award.”

Pending Partition Suit Doesn't Necessarily Mean Subsequent Criminal Allegations By Family Member Are False: Karnataka High Court

Case Title : MR VIVEK M NARAYAN VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3999 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 454

The Karnataka High Court has held that mere pendency of a partition suit does not, by itself, show that any subsequent criminal allegations are false or manufactured to give the dispute a criminal colour.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 454]

Consequently, Justice Suraj Govindaraj refused to quash the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, which were initiated on a complaint registered by his paternal uncle alleging assault.

“The pendency of the partition suit may show that there is a pre-existing family dispute between the parties. However, the mere existence of such a dispute does not mean that every subsequent criminal allegation is necessarily false or has been given a criminal colour,” the Court observed.

Executive Magistrate's Inquest Report Only Aids Probe, Cannot Substitute Police's Final Report: Karnataka High Court

Case Title : SRI SUBBAIAH VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS

Case Number : WRIT PETITION NO. 21921 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 455

The Karnataka High Court has held that an Inquest Report prepared under Section 174 CrPC (corresponding to Section 194 BNSS) is merely a fact-finding report meant to aid the investigation and does not conclude the investigative process or substitute a final report.

Consequently, Justice Suraj Govindaraj directed the police to complete the probe and file final report before the Additional Civil Judge and JMFC Court, Sakleshpura.

Referring to the landmark Madras High Court ruling in Manohari vs District Superintendent of Police & others (2018), the Court said,

“Inquest Report prepared under Section 174 of the CrPC is not a final report. It merely forms part of the materials collected during the course of investigation. Whether the First Information Report is registered before or after the preparation of the Inquest Report would not affect its validity. The Inquest Report is only a fact-finding report intended to ascertain the apparent cause of death and does not conclude the investigation.The judgment further makes it clear that the report submitted by the Executive Magistrate pursuant to the inquest is only intended to aid the investigation conducted by the police.”

Mere Use Of Abusive Language Not Criminal Intimidation Or Intentional Insult Under BNS: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR

Case Title : S P SHANTHI PRASAD VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1737 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)-)

CITATION : 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 456

he Karnataka High Court has held that the mere use of abusive or intemperate language would not, by itself, constitute the offence of intentional insult or criminal intimidation in the absence of specific statutory ingredients.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 456]

Justice Suraj Govindaraj was hearing a criminal petition filed by a man, seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against him by his neighbour following a dispute over boundary and cattle trespass. He has been accused of the offences under Sections 352 (intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace) and 351(2) (criminal intimidation) BNS.

Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in B.V. Ram Kumar vs. State of Telangana (2025), the Court said, “The Hon'ble Supreme Court, referring to Fiona Shrikhande and Mohd. Wajid, has reiterated that mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or insolence would not, by itself, constitute intentional insult within the meaning of the provision.”

Vehicle Driven At Person Can Be 'Instrument Of Death'; Victim's Survival Doesn't Efface Attempt To Murder Charge: Karnataka High Court

Case Title : SRI RAMANJALU VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3658 OF 2022

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 457

The Karnataka High Court has held that a motor vehicle driven recklessly toward a person is capable of becoming an “instrument of death” and the fact that victim survived does not dilute the gravity of the act or efface the criminality.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 457]

In doing so the court dismissed a plea to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner booked for attempt to murder after he allegedly ran over his vehicle on a police constable during a drunken-driving check.

“The law does not countenance a motor vehicle being converted into an instrument of intimidation or violence against those entrusted with its enforcement. The authority of a public servant lawfully discharging his duty cannot be made to yield to the arrogance of an individual who considers himself beyond the reach of the law,” Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed.

Bomb Threats Can't Be Taken Lightly Merely Because Sender Never Intended To Execute Them: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR

Case Title : Abhay Shee v. State of Karnataka & Anr

Case Number : Writ Petition No. 24177 of 2026 (GM-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 458

The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to quash a criminal case against a 22-year-old man, who was accused of sending an email threat to the Bengaluru Police Commissioner, claiming to be from the banned terrorist organisation Jaish-e-Mohammed.[ 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 458]

In the e-mail, the accused had allegedly warned the Commissioner of bomb blasts at the Kempegowda International Airport and several shopping malls. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 427]

The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna opined that the allegations were not merely about an empty threat using the credentials of another person.

“…The alleged object of implicating another person does not, by itself, render the conduct any less serious. A false threat of terrorism is not rendered innocuous merely because the person issuing it never intended to execute the threatened act…”, the court opined.

No Right To Obtain Archived Court Hearing Recordings Without Court's Permission: Karnataka High Court

Case Title : A. Sathyanarayana Swamy v. The High Court of Karnataka & Ors

Case Number : Writ Petition No. 28070 of 2026 (GM-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 459

The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a writ petition seeking access to the archived audio-visual recordings of court proceedings, holding that litigants do not have an absolute right to copies of recordings unless specifically ordered by a Court. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 459]

The single judge bench of Justice CM Poonacha, referring to Rule 8 (Storage and Access) and Rule 10 (Disclaimers, Prohibitions and Restrictions) of Karnataka Rules on Live Streaming and Recording of Court Proceedings, 2021, held as below:

“…It is clear from combined reading of Rule 8 and Rule 10 of the Rules, that the same do not in any manner provide a right to the petitioner to seek for copies of the said recording unless the same is specifically ordered by the Court. In the absence of any right vested with the petitioner, the question of the petitioner assailing the rejection of his request for copies does not arise…', the Court observed.

'Abuse Of Process': Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Case Over Business Dispute Pending Before Arbitrator

Case Title : Mr. Alkesh Vinod Shah & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. (and connected matter)

Case Number : Criminal Petition No. 8419 of 2025 c/w Criminal Petition No. 4215 of 2021

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 460

The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR and subsequent criminal proceedings against the partners and directors of Shalimar Agarbatti Company, holding that a purely civil dispute arising from a Business Transfer Agreement (BTA) cannot be given a criminal colour. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 460]

The single-judge Bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna observed that the complainant, a family member involved in the business dispute, was already challenging the validity of the BTA before an arbitrator while simultaneously alleging that the accused had committed cheating and forgery in connection with the same agreement.

“It is no doubt true that in a given circumstance an incident may give rise to a civil wrong as well as criminal law. This is not one such case. This is a case where criminal law is being set into motion on a business arising out of Business Transfer Agreement and monetary claims, all of which are pending before the Arbitrator not today, but for the last 8 years,” the Court observed.

Mediation Process Can't Be Used As Ruse To Secure Adjournments: Karnataka High Court Dismisses Husband's Plea To Quash Cruelty Case

Case Title : State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Yogesh K & Anr.

Case Number : WRIT APPEAL NO. 458 OF 2025 (S-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 461

The Karnataka High Court has held that a party cannot invoke mediation process as a ruse to secure adjournments and delay proceedings by deliberately failing to participate. It thus dismissed the plea to quash criminal proceedings against the petitioner in a dowry harassment case.[ Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 461]

Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed that once the parties consent to refer a dispute to mediation, they are duty-bound to participate in the proceedings sincerely and diligently. The petitioner cannot thereafter frustrate the process by remaining absent, the Court said.

“Though the petitioner appeared before the mediator on the first occasion, the petitioner remained absent on the subsequent two occasions, despite the respondent being present. This repeated absence, without any satisfactory explanation, makes it evident that the petitioner did not intend to pursue the mediation process in good faith,” the Court observed.

Karnataka High Court Quashes Immoral Trafficking Case Against Lodge Owners, Cites Absence Of Woman In Raiding Team

Case Title : SRI RUDRAPPA S/O. GURULINGAPPA NAVALAGI & ANOTHER VS STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case Number : CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102564 OF 2026 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 462

The Karnataka High Court quashed an FIR under Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act against two men who were running a lodge over allegations of carrying prostitution at the premises, after noting that the raiding party was not accompanied by women as mandated by the provisions.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 462]

Consequently, Justice Venkatesh Naik T allowed the criminal petition filed by the two men.

Referring to several rulings of Karnataka High Court, including Mr. Praveen Kumar M.S. vs State of Karnataka, the Court said that provisions of Section 15(2) of the ITP Act are mandatory in nature as per which the raiding party shall accompanied by a women and another pancha (witness) shall be a person from the locality.