Citations: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 333 to 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 351

NOMINAL INDEX

M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD & another vs PADMANABHA SHETTY G & others ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 333

A vs State of Karnataka, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 334

Chandrakant SHANKAR Vaddar vs State of Karnataka & others, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 335

Aravind Reddy v. State of Karnataka & ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 336

Akthar Hussain Laskar @ Md. Hussain & Abdul Aleem Mondal @ Md Jubal @ Md Jubab v. NIA & Ors., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 337

The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Compnay Ltd. V. Vishwanath & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 338

A vs S,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 339

Sri Vijayaraghava Marathe v. Shri Mallikarjun Kharge & Ors.., 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 340

Darshan S v. State of Karnataka,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 341

RAJAMATI & OTHERS VS. LEELAVATHI & OTHERS, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 342

B.R. Vijay Kumar ("Duniya Vijay") v. Smt. Nagarathna ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 343

Rajesh Nayak v. The Commissioner & Ors. ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 344

A.C.C. Limited v. Union of India & Others & Connected Matters,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 345

Multiplex Association of India & Ors v. State of Karnataka & Ors.,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 346

ARTI SINGH & ANOTHER VS. CASHFREE PAYMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 347

Panchaksharaiah v. G.S. Chandrashekar & Another; Vikash Kumar Vikash v. G.S. Chandrashekar & Another , 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 348

AMARESH H. @ AMARESH POMPANA GOUDA HULUGUNCHI VS GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS and batch ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 349

A v. C, 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 350

SHILPA ARAVALI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, KIRAN KUMAR P VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER ,2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 351

JUDGMENTS/ORDERS

Non-Hospitalisation No Ground For Insurer To Deny Mediclaim If Treatment Connected To Insured Disease: Karnataka High Court

Case Title : M/S NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD & another vs PADMANABHA SHETTY G & others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 14682 OF 2024 (GM-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 333

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a health insurance company cannot deny reimbursement merely because the insured patient was not hospitalised for the administration of injections, where such injections were part of the continuing treatment for a disease covered by the policy.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 333]

“Hospitalisation is not an end in itself; it is a mode in which medical treatment may be administered. Where advances in medical science enable a treatment which would otherwise have required a longer hospital stay to be administered safely and effectively without hospitalisation, the absence of hospitalisation cannot, by itself, be treated as determinative of whether the treatment is connected with the insured disease,” Justice Suraj Govindraj observed.

Brothel Customer Can't Be Expected To Know Age & Caste Of Minor: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail In POCSO Case

Case Title: A vs State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 756 OF 2026 (U/S 14(A) (2))

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 334

The Karnataka High Court granted bail to a man booked in a POCSO and SC/ST Act FIR accused of sexually assaulting a minor in a brothel, observing that customer of a brothel cannot possibly know the age or caste of a victim.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 334]

Justice S Rachaiah allowed the criminal appeal and set aside the order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge.

“Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also on perusal of the averments of the charge-sheet it makes clear that the appellant is one of the customer of the brothel which was being run by accused No.1. On going through the averments of the said charge-sheet, the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant has to be justified for the reasons that the appellant being a customer of the brothel cannot be possible to know the actual age and caste of the victim. Having considered the said aspect, it is appropriate to grant the relief as prayed for,” the Court said.

Karnataka High Court Declares Notification Granting Externment Power To SP As Illegal, Says Executive Action Can't Run Contrary To Statute

Case Title: Chandrakant SHANKAR Vaddar vs State of Karnataka & others

Case No: WP No. 104096 of 2026 (GM-Police)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 335

The Dharwad bench of Karnataka High Court declared a State Government notification conferring externment powers on Superintendents of Police under Sections 55 and 56 of Karnataka Police Act, as non-est and a nullity, observing that an executive instruction or notification cannot run contrary to express provisions in parent statute.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 335]

For context, Sections 55 and 56 of the 1963 Act provide power to remove persons about to commit crimes or convicted of certain offences from an area to the Police Commissioner, for Bangalore city and other areas for which a Commissioner is appointed. For other areas, the power can be extended only to the District Magistrate (DM) or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (SDM) through a notification published in the Official Gazette.

Quashing an externment order issued by the Superintendent of Police, Belagavi, against the petitioner, Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said, “It is a well-settled principle of statutory interpretation that where a statute prescribes the authority, mode, and manner of exercise of power, the executive cannot, by administrative instruction, circular, or notification, confer such power upon an authority not contemplated by the statute. Executive instructions may supplement statutory rules where there is a gap, but they cannot override, amend, or run contrary to the express provisions of the parent statute.”

Karnataka High Court Expresses Displeasure Over Police Issuing Look Out Circular Against Advocate-Cricketer In Bailable Offence

Case Title: Aravind Reddy v. State of Karnataka & ors.

Case No: WP No.36586/2025 (GM-RES)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 336

The Karnataka High Court has expressed deep displeasure over the police's decision to issue a Look Out Circular (LOC) against advocate-cricketer and AVR Group founder Aravind Reddy in a case involving bailable offences, including the alleged stalking of a Kannada actress, while disposing of the writ petition after the State agreed not to enforce the LOC further. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 336]

The single judge bench of Justice T.P Vivekananda noted in the order that the petitioner had not eloped abroad in anticipation of the arrest over bailable offences, but he was returning from Sri Lanka after participating in a cricket tournament. The court hence found no justifying circumstances for the issuance of LOC.

“…From 17.10.2025[date of registration of FIR] till 06.11.2025, what steps the respondent police have taken to trace the petitioner is not forthcoming from the writ petition papers or the documents produced along with the memo. It is on record that the petitioner has traveled to Sri Lanka only on 06.11.2025 and it cannot be said that in anticipation of his arrest in respect of the crime registered on 17.10.2025, the petitioner has travelled to abroad….This Court expresses deep displeasure against respondent Nos.3 to 5[DCP, ACP & Commissioner] for taking extreme step of issuance of Look Out Notice/Circular against the petitioner, pursuant a crime registered against the petitioner for the bailable offences.”, it was noted in the order.

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Reduce Sentence Of Terror Convicts Who Pleaded Guilty, Cites Gravity Of Waging War Against India

Case Title: Akthar Hussain Laskar @ Md. Hussain & Abdul Aleem Mondal @ Md Jubal @ Md Jubab v. NIA & Ors.

Case No: CRL.A No.277/2024

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 337

he Karnataka High Court has recently dismissed the appeal of two men convicted under UAPA seeking reduction of their sentence from 7 years to 5 years, holding that the gravity of the offences committed by them warranted no leniency from the court. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 337]

The Division bench of Justice H.P Sandesh and Justice B. Pramod noted in the order that the reduction of sentence cannot be granted as a matter of right to the terror convicts.

“…the Trial Court considering the gravity of the offence, imposed sentence of 7 years proportionate to the crime committed by the appellants and the appellants also as a matter of right cannot claim to impose minimum sentence of only 5 years and it is the discretion of the Court to impose the same, even though the accused persons have pleaded guilty without trial….”

For context, the appellants were convicted by the Bengaluru Special Court for NIA Cases for offences under Sections 13 (Punishment for Unlawful Activities), 18 (Punishment for Conspiracy), 38 (Offence Relating to Membership of a Terrorist Organization), 39 (Offence Relating to Support Given to a Terrorist Organization) Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, and Sections 120-B, 121-A, 153-A, 153-B of IPC, and had been imprisoned for the past 4 years.

Drunk Riding Poses Risk To Public, Can't Adopt Liberal Approach In Compensation Claims: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: The Divisional Manager, National Insurance Compnay Ltd. V. Vishwanath & Ors.

Case No: MFA No.202713/2023

CITATION: 2026 Livelaw (Kar) 338

The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a claimant who rode a motorcycle under the influence of alcohol couldn't claim full compensation, attributing 30% contributory negligence to the injured rider. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 338]

The single judge bench of Justice K.V Aravind, sitting at Kalaburagi, held that ignoring the violation of law such as riding a vehicle under the influence of alcohol would be counter-productive to the safety of citizens on the road. In such cases, the norm of liberally interpreting benevolent laws cannot be extended indefinitely when the claimant himself has violated the law, the court opined.

Woman Marrying Divorcee Can't Claim Maintenance If She Fails To Verify Finality Of Divorce Decree: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: A vs S

Case No: REVISION PETITION FAMILY COURT NO.100123 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 339

The Dharwad Bench of Karnataka High Court has held that a woman who knowingly marries a man believing him to be a divorcee cannot claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) if she failed to verify whether the divorce decree had attained finality or was stayed in appeal.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 339]

Justice Geetha K.B. dismissed a revision petition filed by a woman challenging the Family Court's order denying her maintenance.

“When once it is brought to the knowledge of petitioner that respondent is a divorcee, the diligent person will make efforts to verify the genuineness of said factum; whether any appeal against the said order is filed, pending or not.

Karnataka High Court Allows Private Complaint Against Mallikarjun Kharge Family Trust Over 'Illegal' BDA Land Allotment To Proceed

Case Title: Sri Vijayaraghava Marathe v. Shri Mallikarjun Kharge & Ors.

Case No: Criminal Petition No.12406/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 340

The Karnataka High Court has recently held that a defective affidavit accompanying a private complaint is a curable defect, and the same cannot be used as grounds to abandon the statutory procedure under Section 175 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and opt for a complaint enquiry under Section 223 BNSS instead. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 340]

The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was adjudicating a challenge to a trial court order refusing further investigation into allegations of irregularities in BDA (Bengaluru Development Authority) land allotment involving the trust of senior Congress leader Mallikarjun Kharge and his family.

“…The concerned Court, instead of permitting such rectification[curing defects of affidavit] and thereafter traversing the statutory route ordained under Section 175 of the BNSS, allowed itself to be arrested by the technical infirmity in the affidavit and diverted the proceeding altogether to an enquiry under Section 223 of the BNSS. Such an approach places procedure on a pedestal above purpose…. The requirement of an affidavit is undoubtedly a statutory safeguard and must be scrupulously complied with before any substantive order directing investigation is made; but a safeguard intended to ensure responsibility in invocation of the criminal process cannot be converted into a stumbling block, which extinguishes that very process even before the stage for its invocation arrives.”, the court noted by relying on the precedents in N. Vijayalakshmi v. State of Karnataka (2025) and Arul Gerald Prakash v. State of Tamil Nadu(2025) which has held that defects in filing affidavits in itself can be cured.

Karnataka High Court Quashes Order Pardoning Approver Pradosh In Renukaswamy Murder Trial, Cites 'Procedural Aberrations'

Case Title: Darshan S v. State of Karnataka

Case No: Crl P 13595/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 341

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (September 8) set aside a trial court's order granting conditional pardon to an accused-turned-approver Pradosh in the Renukaswamy murder case allegedly involving Kannada actor Darshan, holding that the procedure adopted suffered from 'procedural aberrations'. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 341]

Darshan, accused No.2 in the murder case, had approached the High Court challenging two orders passed by LVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Court Judge S.M Sambrani, namely, order granting pardon to Pradosh S. Rao and treating him as an approver, and the earlier order calling for a report from the Probation Officer

The single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna today said,

“….In light of the procedural aberrations, Criminal Petition is allowed in part. The orders dated 20 August 2026 and 25 August 2026 stand obliterated….The matter is remitted back to the concerned Court to pass an order afresh on the application filed under Section 307 of Cr.P.C and regulate its procedure… taking the issue to its logical conclusion. While so doing, the Court shall bear in mind the observations made in the course of this order."

Offerings By Devotees To Hereditary Temple Priest In Arati Tray Is His Personal Income, Not Joint Family Property: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: RAJAMATI & OTHERS VS. LEELAVATHI & OTHERS

Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.200037 OF 2014 (PAR/POS)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 342

The Kalaburgi Bench of the Karnataka High Court has held that the offerings made by devotees to a hereditary archak (temple priest) in the mangalarathi (prayer ritual) plate constitute his individual income saved under Section 3 of the Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930, and do not form part of a joint family nucleus.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 342]

“The offerings made by the devotees to the archak is the remuneration that he receives for leading a pious life and as a token of respect for his vidwath in agama shastra, mastery over kriyas, kainkaryas, memorizing hymns, mantras, rituals and understanding the relevant religious texts and reciting them appropriately and invoke the blessings of God etc,” the Division Bench of Justice R. Nataraj and Justice Tyagaraja N. Inavally observed.

“These offerings are therefore in recognition of the learning of the person and hence, are deemed to be his own income saved under Section 3 of the Hindu Gains of Learning Act, 1930 and not the income of the joint family,” the Court added.

The Court also drew a distinction between the offerings made to the temple and those to the priest, stating, “Therefore, any offering by the devotees to the temple cannot become the income of the priest but on the contrary would be accounted by the Trust. The only offering that a priest is entitled to take home is the offering made by the devotees in the mangalarathi plate.”

Fame Doesn't Create Exception: Karnataka High Court Grants Divorce To Actor 'Duniya Vijay', Awards ₹2 Crore Permanent Alimony To Wife

Case Title: B.R. Vijay Kumar ("Duniya Vijay") v. Smt. Nagarathna

Case No: MFA No.6129/2024 (FC)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 343

The Karnataka High Court has granted a decree of divorce to popular Kannada actor 'Duniya Vijay' (B.R. Vijay Kumar) on the ground of cruelty, while awarding Rs 2 crores as permanent alimony to his estranged wife, Nagarathna. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 343]

“…Fame does not create an exception to a person's conduct but it magnifies its standard. When a man of public influence strays from the sanctity of marriage, his fall from grace does not become a cause for adulation. This Judgment is rendered, not in celebration of the husband's conduct but inspite of it, considering the peculiar facts herein. We hope that it serves as a reminder that respect earned on screen cannot compensate for dereliction of matrimonial obligations at home”, the court noted in the order at the outset.

Karnataka High Court Issues Directions For Financial Management Of Hindu Temples; Mandates Real-Time Monitoring, Tamper-Proof Receipts

Case Title: Rajesh Nayak v. The Commissioner & Ors.

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 6653 OF 2025

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 344

Calling for an overhaul of finance management of Hindu temples, the Karnataka High Court has upheld the dismissal of an employee held for misappropriation of temple funds, while simultaneously issuing a comprehensive set of directions applicable to all Hindu religious institutions in the State. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 344]

The single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj while hearing the plea against the dismissal of a 2^nd Division Assistant at Sri Durga Parameshwari Temple, Udupi concluded that the employee was guilty of issuing duplicate receipts and misappropriating temple collections.

Calling such practises 'a systemic concern' affecting the utilisation of temple finances prone to fraud and misappropriation, the court noted as below:

“The system, in short, neither prevented the fraud nor preserved the trail needed to prove it …What this case shows is how easily temple collections can be siphoned off, and how difficult such wrongdoing can be both to detect and to prove…Temple funds are not ordinary funds. They are trust property, gathered from the faith of devotees and held for the deity and for the institution. A system of financial control that depends on chance discovery and manual reconciliation, and that can be defeated by one employee with exclusive access to a counter and a password, does not answer to that duty in the present age…”, the court noted in the order

No Supplementary Lease Deed Needed For Statutorily Extended Mining Lease: Karnataka High Court Quashes ₹482 Crore Penalty On ACC

Case Title: A.C.C. Limited v. Union of India & Others & Connected Matters

Case Numbers: WP No. 25298 of 2024 (GM-MM-S) C/W WP No. 18655 of 2025 (GM-MM-S) & WP No. 36850 of 2025 (GM-MM-S)

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 345

The Karnataka High Court has on September 8 [Tuesday] quashed a Rs 482.69 crore penalty imposed on ACC Limited- a part of the Adani Group- holding that mining operations during a statutorily extended lease term won't be deemed as 'unlawful' merely because a Supplementary Lease Deed was not executed to that effect.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 345]

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice K.S. Hemalekha has allowed the writ petitions filed by ACC Ltd, while dismissing the State's challenge to a revisional order that had rejected the State's demand for royalty on a notional basis.

“…By virtue of Section 8A(5) of the MMDR Act, the term of the mining lease in question has been extended till 31.03.2030. Thus, by virtue of the statute, ACC held the mining lease and the right to extract minerals... In this view, the minerals extracted by ACC cannot be construed as minerals extracted without authority of law solely on the reason that a Supplementary Lease Deed recording the extension of term... was not executed”, the Court observed while rejecting the State's argument that a registered lease deed is essential for the validity of mining operations during the extended period.

Karnataka High Court Quashes Enforcement Of 2% Cinema Cess On Film Tickets

Case Title: Multiplex Association of India & Ors v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Case No: WP 28571/2026

2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 346

The Karnataka High Court has come to the aid of the Multiplex Association of India and PVR INOX Limited by setting aside the measures used to enforce 2% cess on cinema tickets under the Karnataka Cine and Cultural Activists (Welfare) Act, 2024.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 346]

The single judge bench of Justice H.T. Narendra Prasad ruled that the steps taken to operationalise and collect the cess could not stand because the 2024 Act had not been validly commenced through a notification under Section 1(2) of the 2024 Act.

The writ petition had challenged the 2024 Act, the Karnataka Cine and Cultural Activists Social Security and Welfare Rules, 2025, the 2026 amendment to the Act, and various notifications, office orders, circulars and enforcement notices issued to implement the cess against cinema halls and multiplexes.

Karnataka High Court Sets Aside 'Unreasoned' Ex-Parte Takedown Order In Defamation Case

Case Title: ARTI SINGH & ANOTHER VS. CASHFREE PAYMENTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 4754 OF 2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 347

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an ex-parte order directing fintech journalist Arti Singh and tech news platform Head and Tale Media Pvt. Ltd founded by Singh, to take down allegedly defamatory articles against digital payments platform Cashfree Payments.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 347]

In doing so the court held that the trial court's order–passed in a defamation suit filed by Cashfree–was unreasoned and failed to record findings on the three essential ingredients required for grant of an ex-parte injunction — a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury.

“Whenever an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC is considered, the trial Court is required to deliberate upon three essential requirements of prima facie case, balance of convenience and the hardship that would be caused more to which of the parties,” Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur observed.

The Court noted that the Trial Court failed to spell out the fulfilment of essential requirements under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) while grating ex-parte injunction order, and said, “In the present case on hand, it is apparently clear that reasons are not spelt out in the impugned order passed by the trial Court as to what is the prima facie case made out and the two other essential requirements of balance of convenience and irreparable hardship that would be caused more to which of the parties.”

Karnataka High Court Upholds FIR Against Ex-SP Accused Of Hurling Paperweight At Subordinate For Missing Sports Activities

Case Title: Panchaksharaiah v. G.S. Chandrashekar & Another; Vikash Kumar Vikash v. G.S. Chandrashekar & Another

Case No: Criminal Petition No. 8397 of 2021 c/w Criminal Petition No. 1694 of 2021

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 348

The Karnataka High Court has recently refused to quash an FIR against former Superintendent of Police of Chikkamagalur district [accused no.1] accused of hurling a paperweight at a subordinate officer during over being allegedly absent from sports activities. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 348]

However, the single judge bench of Justice Ravi V Hosmani has quashed the FIR against the former Inspector [accused no.2] accused of abusing the complainant.

The court held that while the former Inspector's alleged acts of reprimanding the complainant for skipping sports activities had a nexus with maintaining discipline in a uniformed force, the former SP's alleged act of calling the complainant to his chamber, locking the door and hitting him with a paperweight causing a bleeding eyebrow injury could not be considered a 'bona fide exercise of official duty'.

Development Projects Can't Be Abandoned, Shifted Or Stalled Merely Due To Change In Govt: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: AMARESH H. @ AMARESH POMPANA GOUDA HULUGUNCHI VS GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA & OTHERS and batch

Case No: WP NO.105825/2024, WP NO. 105789/2023, WP NO.105795/2023

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 349

The Karnataka High Court has held that a government scheme or a developmental project cannot be “abandoned, shifted or stalled” merely because there has been a change in political dispensation.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 349]

In doing so the court quashed a communication issued by the sitting MLA of Siruguppa who had directed shifting of an irrigation project from Ibrahimpur village to Nagalpur village.

“A change in political dispensation, by itself, cannot furnish a ground to obliterate or undo decisions already taken in accordance with law. Governmental schemes and developmental projects, particularly projects intended for the benefit of marginal farmers, cannot be treated as matters which can be abandoned, shifted or stalled merely because there has been a change in the political executive,” Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum observed.

'Hectic': Karnataka High Court Modifies Visitation To Prevent 950-Km Monthly Travel For 10-Yr-Old In Father's Custody

Case Title :  A v. C

Case Number :  Writ Petition No. 16393 of 2026 (GM-FC)

CITATION :  2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 350

The Karnataka High Court has recently modified a family court's visitation order that required a 10-year-old boy studying in Bengaluru to travel nearly 1,000 kilometres every month to spend a weekend with his mother in Honnavar, observing that the child had 'literally become a victim of the disputes' that occurred between the estranged couple. [2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 350]

The Single Judge Bench of Dr. Justice Chillakur Sumalatha was hearing a writ petition filed by the father, challenging the order passed by a Family Court at Honnavar in an interim application, in favour of the wife.

“…A child of 10 years old cannot take up such a hectic task. Literally child has become a victim of the disputes that are prevailing between the estranged couple who are parties to these proceedings. Paramount welfare of the child is the prime consideration. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the directions given for such visitation are unsustainable.”, the court noted.

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Over MBBS Seat Fraud, Says 'Cloak' Of Civil Transaction Can't Defeat Criminal Probe

Case Title :  SHILPA ARAVALI VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER, KIRAN KUMAR P VS STATE OF KARNATAKA & ANOTHER

Case Number :  CRL.P No. 10705/2026, CRL.P NO. 10794/2026

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 351

The Karnataka High Court refused to quash an FIR against a couple, accused of defrauding a woman of Rs 1.40 crore on the promise of securing an MBBS seat for her daughter, holding that mere presence of a monetary/civil transaction cannot be permitted to “smother” a legitimate criminal investigation.[2026 LiveLaw (Kar) 351]

The couple claimed that the case was at best a civil transaction between them and the complainant which happened three years ago and that the complainant waited three years to lodge a complaint.

Rejecting the petitioners' argument that the criminal proceedings were a coercive device for recovery of money, Justice M Nagaprasanna observed:

"The submission that the proceedings are merely a coercive device for recovery of money, therefore, cannot become a talisman by the mere utterance of the expression “civil dispute”. Every transaction involving money does not, by that circumstance alone, shed its criminal complexion. Where the very foundation of the transaction is alleged to have been laid in deception and the victim is induced to part with property on a representation which, from its inception, is alleged to have been dishonest, the cloak of a civil transaction cannot be permitted to smother a legitimate criminal investigation"