Cop booked for attacking lawyer fined ₹1 lakh by Karnataka HC for hiding facts to get stay on case

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday imposed exemplary costs of ₹1 lakh on a policewoman for suppressing a key fact to secure a stay on a criminal case registered against her for allegedly attacking an advocate who had come to the police station to register a road rage case.

The policewoman was accused of kicking the lady advocate in retaliation after the lawyer allegedly shoved papers kept at the police station because she was made to wait for hours to register her complaint.

The conduct of both parties had earlier been condemned by the Court, which then ordered the registration of a first information report (FIR) against the policewoman as well.

The cop later filed a petition to quash the FIR. A vacation Bench comprising Justice KV Aravind passed an interim order last month staying the investigation against the police woman.

The matter was then listed before Justice M Nagaprasanna, together with a petition filed by the lawyer to quash a criminal case filed against her over her alleged act of ransacking the police station.

When the matter was heard yesterday, Justice Nagaprasanna was displeased to find that the policewoman had omitted to inform Justice Aravind that the criminal case filed against her was registered on the Court's orders.

"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 observed.

Justice Nagaprasanna noted that "not a whisper" was made in the cop's petition about the FIR being registered on the Court's earlier directions.

"The interim order is secured suppressing a material fact, suppressing the very foundation of registration of crime that is the order passed by this Court. Therefore, not for anything but for that materal suppression, the petition deserves to be dismissed," the judge concluded.

The Court proceeded to dismiss the police woman's petition to quash the FIR while also imposing ₹1 lakh as exemplary costs. The Court further ordered that the costs be paid by the policewoman to the Karnataka Legal Services Authority within eight weeks.

It further made it clear that the investigation against the policewoman should continue. An investigation report is also to be placed before the High Court.

"The investigation shall continue, and the result of investigation shall be placed before the Court prior to placing the final report before the concerned Court," the Court ordered.

The matter before the Court concerned events that took place on the night of February 23, 2025. A lawyer was involved in a road-rage incident with an auto driver, who allegedly overtook her car, stopped it and threw a boulder, which broke the car's window.

The lawyer had then approached the police to register a complaint. However, she was made to wait for two hours to register the complaint, prompting her to allegedly create a ruckus at the police station. 

In retaliation, a policewoman on night patrol is alleged to have attacked the lawyer by kicking her all over her body. 

The lawyer eventually approached the High Court to quash the criminal case registered against her for her alleged conduct at the police station. The Court on April 17 questioned the behaviour of both the advocate, as well as, the police officer. Justice Nagaprasanna went on to order the registration of a criminal case against the errant cop as well.

In yesterday's hearing of the matter, the judge went on to observe that if there was any argument to justify the cop's conduct, it should have been brought to his notice. He questioned how the policewoman could have suppressed facts and got a stay from another Bench instead. Addressing the police officer's counsel, Justice Nagaprasanna said,

"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 Court also highlighted the seriousness of the allegations that the police woman faces.

"How do you file another petition in the vacation and take a stay? 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."

Addressing her lawyer, the judge added,

"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?"