The Karnataka High Court has imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on a police officer for concealing critical information to obtain a stay on a criminal investigation against her. The case involved allegations of the officer assaulting an advocate who had visited the police station to report a road rage incident.
The incident, which took place on February 23, 2025, involved a lawyer who approached the police to lodge a complaint after an altercation with an auto-rickshaw driver. The driver allegedly overtook her vehicle, forced it to stop, and shattered its window with a boulder. Upon reaching the police station, the lawyer was reportedly made to wait for a prolonged period, which led to her becoming agitated. In response, a policewoman allegedly retaliated by physically assaulting the advocate.
The High Court, led by Justice M Nagaprasanna, had previously condemned the conduct of both parties involved. The Court directed that a First Information Report (FIR) be registered against the policewoman. However, the officer sought to quash the FIR and secured an interim stay on the investigation through a petition, which was initially granted by a vacation Bench led by Justice KV Aravind.
This interim order was challenged when the matter was presented before Justice M Nagaprasanna. The judge expressed discontent upon discovering that the policewoman’s petition omitted the fact that the FIR was initiated based on a court order. Justice Nagaprasanna remarked, “What does she think of herself? Did you disclose the order in the petition? Is it not suppression? I am going to impose costs.”
Justice Nagaprasanna emphasized that the omission constituted a material suppression, stating, “The interim order is secured by suppressing a material fact, suppressing the very foundation of registration of the crime that is the order passed by this Court. Therefore, not for anything but for that material suppression, the petition deserves to be dismissed.” Consequently, the High Court dismissed the policewoman’s petition and levied a fine of ₹1 lakh, payable to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority within eight weeks. The Court further mandated the continuation of the investigation and required that an investigation report be submitted before the High Court.
More Read
In addressing the police officer’s legal representation, Justice Nagaprasanna questioned the rationale behind filing a separate petition to secure a stay without full disclosure: “What is not said here, you have told in the (vacation bench) Court is it? If you are really fair, you would have pleaded, if you had pleaded and taken an interim order, I would have appreciated it, (but) not by suppressing my order… This order would not have come at all. If you had annexed my order and told this Court has directed the registration of the FIR. No Court will stay it. I also would not have stayed anything like that.”
The High Court underscored the gravity of the allegations against the policewoman, referencing CCTV footage that purportedly captures the assault. The judge commented on the footage, “CCTV clearly shows you have booted the lady. What was the warrant? For throwing a few files? Have you not seen the CCTV? Have you seen? Watch it.”
Justice Nagaprasanna further emphasized the lack of justification for the policewoman’s actions, noting, “Tomorrow you may be in such a situation. No warrant at all, she has simply gone and booted her. Which law empowers that lady to behave like that?”
