Karnataka High Court orders FIR against cop accused of attacking advocate at police station

The Karnataka High Court recently ordered the registration of a criminal case against a police officer accused kicking an advocate who had visited a police station to file a road rage complaint [Nabonita Sen v State by Station House Officer].

The incident took place after the lawyer allegedly shoved papers kept on the tables onto the floor when she was made to wait for hours to register her complaint.

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

Justice M Nagaprasanna sharply criticised the police officer's alleged conduct and questioned why she was not stopped by other police personnel. He opined that a criminal case must be registered against the errant cop as well.

"There is no crime registered against the police sub-inspector but the CCTV footage is clear that the police sub-inspector Padmavathi has indulged in kicking the petitioner (lawyer) on all parts of the body without any rhyme or reason merely because certain papers are being pulled down from the table of the police station by the petitioner. Therefore it is a fit case where the police sub-inspector who has indulged in such an act must be brought to books, not by a mere warning of departmental inquiry, but by registration of a crime and conduct of investigation," the Court said.

The order was passed on a petition moved by the attacked lawyer to quash a criminal case filed against her over her alleged act of ransacking the police station.

The events took place on the night of February 23, 2025. The 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 create a ruckus at the police station.

The Court on April 17 questioned the behaviour of both the advocate, as well as, the police officer.

"If the petitioner has misbehaved proceedings will go on. That doesn't mean that police can misbehave," Justice Nagaprasanna said.

The judge also indicated that he was not inclined to quash the criminal case filed against the advocate. Such conduct is not expected from a lawyer, the Court observed.

"You lost your patience for having being made to wait for 2 hours to give a complaint in the police station? Do you know what time you went to the police station? ... Were you in a proper state? That does not mean you can ransack the police station. You have ransacked the police station, the sub-inspector has hit you in boots. I will direct criminal case to be registered against the sub-inspector and the policeman who have behaved. That doesn't mean you will escape," Justice Nagaprasanna remarked.

Additional Special Public Prosecutor BN Jagadeesh appeared for the State. He submitted that an FIR can be registered against the errant police officer, based on CCTV visuals of the incident. He also opposed the quashing of the case filed against the lawyer, arguing that her behaviour cannot be condoned.

Advocate Murthy DL appeared for the petitioner-lawyer.

The matter will be heard next on June 5, 2026.