Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 126 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 133

Nominal Citation

Sri Gopal Joshi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 126

Neeraj Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 127

Sri Suri Payala v. Government of Karnataka & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 128

Sri Ravichandre Gowda N.R. v. State of Karnataka & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 128

Smt. Sumithra & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 130

Mohan Naik & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 131

Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka & Ors. v. Sri Pavanesh D & Ors. and conn.matters, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 132

Mr. Yugadev R. v. State of Karnataka & Others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 133

Judgments/ Orders

Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Union Minister Prahlad Joshi's Brother In Alleged 'Election Ticket' Cheating Case

Case Title: Sri Gopal Joshi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 28739 of 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 126

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the cheating case filed by the wife of a former JD(S) MLA against Gopal Joshi- the estranged brother of Union Minister Prahlad Joshi-and his son, holding that the ₹2 crore dispute over an election ticket was a civil matter of money recovery, not a criminal offence.

The single-judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna noted in the order as follows:

“…The issue, in the case at hand, is a transaction which has gone wrong. Money allegedly changed hands. Therefore, it was purely for the purpose of recovery of money criminal proceedings are set into motion, which the Apex Court deprecated…”.

“Highly Improper": Karnataka High Court Quashes Seizure & RC Cancellation Of Mercedes In Tax Case, Says RTO Acted Beyond Authority

Case Title: Neeraj Kumar Sharma v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 36250 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 127

Criticising the unlawful seizure of a Mercedes vehicle and subsequent cancellation of its registration during the pendency of a writ petition against the seizure, the Karnataka High Court has come down on the state's RTO Department for 'flagrant disregard for court proceedings'. The court has directed the authority to restore the registration of the Mercedes-AMG G 63 vehicle in question.

The single judge bench of Justice Jyoti M has quashed the Investigation Report of Vehicle's seizure and the order of cancellation of the Registration Certificate as untenable in law. In June 2025, a special checking squad under the RTO had taken possession of the vehicle parked on the roadside, claiming non-payment of sufficient taxes as a reason.

Mere Conferment Of Ministerial Perks Doesn't Make Cabinet Rank Appointments 'Ministers' Under Article 164(1A): Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Sri Suri Payala v. Government of Karnataka & Ors.

Case No.: Writ Petition No. 3570 of 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 128

The Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed a public interest litigation filed to quash the appointment of several MLAs (Member of Legislative Assembly) and MLCs (Member of Legislative Council) to various Boards and Corporations with cabinet rank and pecuniary benefits similar to that of ministers.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha held that such appointees are not 'Ministers' within the meaning of Article 164(1A) of the Constitution.

The court held that the 15 per cent ceiling on the number of MLAs/MLCs that can be included in the council of ministers, though rigid, does not extend to statutory body/board appointments. The court clarified that such appointees, even if they receive similar salary and cabinet rank perks as those of the ministers, are not to be counted as a part of the council of ministers per se.

Karnataka High Court Directs State To Grant S.17A Sanction To Investigate Rohini Sindhuri IAS In Cloth Bag Scam

Case Title: Sri Ravichandre Gowda N.R. v. State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No. 2783 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 129

The Karnataka High Court has set aside a government order refusing the sanction to investigate IAS officer Rohini Sindhuri, former Mysuru Deputy Commissioner, in the alleged 'eco-friendly cloth bags procurement' scam.

The single judge bench of Justice M.Nagaprasanna directed the state to provide approval under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act to sanction preliminary investigation within four weeks. The court underscored that departmental exoneration cannot be utilised by the state to shield the accused officer from 'even the threshold scrutiny of criminal investigation'.

'Can't Use Criminal Law As Weapon To Implicate In-Laws In Matrimonial Discord': Karnataka High Court Quashes Cruelty FIR

Case Title: Smt. Sumithra & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.

Case No.: Criminal Petition No. 12989 of 2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 130

The Karnataka High Court quashed criminal proceedings against the in-laws of a woman who had alleged dowry harassment, remarking that criminal law cannot be wielded as a weapon to ensnare entire families in the vortex of matrimonial discord.

The single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna analysed the woman's complaint and opined that the case arose from 'minor skirmishes' not 'uncommon to joint families' which has been elevated to the 'pedestal of criminality'. The court added that the 'sine qua non' for a charge under Section 498A would be a grave cruelty connected to 'unlawful demands', and not merely 'marital discord'.

Trial Judge Can't Use Leading Questions U/S 165 Evidence Act To 'Repair' Weaknesses In Rape Case: Karnataka High Court Acquits Two

Case Title: Mohan Naik & Anr. v. The State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Appeal No. 824 of 2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 131

While acquitting two rape-accused serving a 25-year sentence, the Karnataka High Court has underscored that the discretionary powers at the disposal of trial courts under Section 165 of the Indian Evidence Act [Section 168 in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023] is not a shortcut to bolster the prosecution case or rectify evidence during cross examination.

The single judge bench of Justice G.Basavaraja noted that a judge has the power to put forward questions towards witnesses under Section 165 to 'discover the truth'. However, such discretionary power comes with a caveat against its utilisation for remedying material contradictions in witness statements. The court opined that such caution is necessary especially in Section 376[Rape cases] where the statement and evidence of the prosecutrix could be extra sensitive.

Karnataka HC Dismisses Direct Recruit District Judges' Challenge To Seniority List; Directs State To Notify Cadre Strength Within One Month

Case Title: Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka & Ors. v. Sri Pavanesh D & Ors. and conn.matters

Case No: WA No. 1006/2023, WA No. 1162/2023, WA No. 1312/2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 132

The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to formally notify the cadre strength of judicial officers within a fixed timeline while also enunciating the legal framework governing the seniority and cadre strength of District Judges. The court has also asked the state to implement the 4-point roster to structure promotions of judicial officers.

The Full Bench comprising Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav, Justice Lalitha Kanneganti, and Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil, on Tuesday, refused to entertain a challenge made by Direct Recruit-District Judges to the 2016 and 2022 Seniority Lists [original and revised respectively] that placed Promotee District Judges above them. The full bench has hence set aside a 2023 single judge bench order which ruled in the favour of the Direct Recruits.

S. 35 BNSS | Notice Of Appearance Must Be Served Physically, WhatsApp Or Email Not Valid Modes: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Mr. Yugadev R. v. State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: Crl. Petition No. 981 of 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 133

The Karnataka High Court has recently observed that Section 35(3) does not empower the Police to communicate by WhatsApp or Email the pre-arrest notice or copy of the FIR. The court clarified that the physical service of notice at the pre arrest stage is mandatory as intended by the legislature.

The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, relying on apex court decisions, held that electronic communication of notice under Section 35 BNSS [Section 41A of CrPC] is invalid as inferred from 'conscious omission' in the statute. The court iterated the apex court observation in Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 114, that it cannot introduce a procedure into Section 35 which is not intended by the legislature.