The Karnataka High Court on Friday stayed a criminal case registered against a man booked for allegedly driving a green Lamborghini in a reckless manner through Bengaluru traffic, the visuals of which had recently gone viral on social media.

Justice M Nagaprasanna passed the order after the driver's counsel submitted that he had already paid a ₹8,500 fine for the incident over a month before the criminal case was registered.

The incident itself took place in December 2025, while the criminal case was registered a month-and-a-half later after a video of the car speeding through traffic went viral recently on social media, the Court was told.

The driver's counsel added that retrofitted silencers on the vehicle had already been removed in compliance with the Road Transport Office's (RTO) directives.

In response to a query from the judge, the driver's counsel, Advocate Rajath, also said that the driver was willing to do community service, which is an alternative penalty provided for some minor offences under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS).

The Court proceeded to grant the driver interim relief until his plea to quash the criminal case is heard next on February 6.

"The petitioner who drove a car - Lamborghini has landed himself in soup for the reason that the vehicle was roaring beyond the permitted decibel levels...the fine is paid by the petitioner for the roar of the car. It did not stop there. The petitioner is said to have driven the vehicle in a reckless manner on 14.12.2025 and 19.12.2025, which is captured and was circulated in the social media…In the light of....the fine being taken, I deem it appropriate to stall further investigation in Crime No.14/2026, qua the petitioner, till the next date of hearing," the Court ordered.

Yesterday's hearing of the matter also saw comments being made on Bengaluru traffic. Advocate Rajath began his submissions by explaining why the Maharashtra-registered vehicle was on Karnataka's roads.

"On December 14, a series of vehicles travelled from Mysore to Coorg on an expedition organised by the Lamborghini showroom in Bengaluru…I am one of the last vehicles in the expedition. I drive, according to the prosecution, a little fast," he said.

“A little fast?" interjected Justice Nagaprasanna in a lighter vein, adding,

"(For a) Lambhorgini…Beginning speed is 200."

"In Bangalore traffic, it is impossible to drive at that pace," replied Advocate Rajath.

He went on to argue that the criminal case was registered after a month's lapse, only because it involved a high-end vehicle that had captured the attention of social media.

"The complaint has come to be registered by a traffic sub inspector on the basis of information that he saw on X Corp. After the lapse of 1.5 months. For having driven that way, I have paid a fine of ₹8,500," he said.

"That is less. Under BNSS, we will ask you to do community service," quipped Justice Nagaprasanna.

"I am willing to do that, I have no problem," replied Advocate Rajath.

"You take your Lamborghini, park there, do community service and come back," Justice Nagaprasanna added.

On being told that the visuals of the incident showed the vehicle speeding through Bengaluru, the Court went on to remark,

"In, Bengaluru, it is bumper to bumper. Where will you go fast?"

"Even in this case, it is bumper to bumper," the driver's counsel replied.

"You zig-zagged," Justice Nagaprasanna said.

"That is the allegation, zig zag will not amount to dangerous and reckless driving…At the most, it may about to over-speeding, for which fine is paid," the lawyer maintained.

"You created noise, more (than permitted)," the judge proceeded to point out.

"For which I paid a ₹8,500 fine before the registration of the FIR. One and a half months before the FIR," Advocate Rajath said.

He added, 

"Each and every newspaper daily publicised it. News channels across the country has targeted this vehicle. If it was any other vehicle but a Lamborghini, this would not have been an issue."

The lawyer also argued that if his client's driving speed was the basis for the criminal case, scores of such cases would have to be filed.

"It is 60 or 70 kilometers per hour, maximum. If this is considered to be dangerous and reckless driving, half the population in the country would face (a penalty)," argued Advocate Rajath.

"Someone else not being booked is not a reason (to quash the criminal case)," Justice Nagaprasanna observed, in response to such arguments.

However, the judge proceeded to grant the driver interim relief by staying the criminal case proceedings against him for now.

Additional Public Prosecutor BN Jagadish appeared for the State.