Karnataka High Court fines police officer for concealing court order to obtain stay on FIR

The High Court of Karnataka has imposed a fine of ₹1 lakh on a woman police sub-inspector for securing an interim stay on a First Information Report (FIR) by deliberately concealing the fact that the FIR had been registered on the court's own direction.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by sub-inspector Padmavathi T.B., who had challenged the FIR registered against her following a direction issued by the High Court itself in April 2025.

The court observed that the petitioner had maintained "studied silence" and failed to mention that the FIR was based on a judicial direction after the court reviewed CCTV footage showing her physically assaulting a lady advocate inside a police station in Bengaluru.

"The concealment is not peripheral; it is foundational. Had the co-ordinate Bench been apprised that the registration of the FIR was not a routine police action but one born out of a specific judicial direction issued by the High Court itself after prima facie satisfaction of the petitioner's overt misconduct, the consideration for grant of interim relief would have stood on an altogether different footing," the court noted.

The case stems from a road rage incident on February 23, 2025, when the advocate's car was allegedly damaged by an auto-rickshaw driver. When the advocate approached the Mico Layout Traffic Police Station to lodge a complaint, the police allegedly delayed registering it. Out of frustration, the advocate behaved erratically and dislodged some papers. Padmavathi was called to the station in the early hours and, upon arrival, kicked the advocate repeatedly without provocation. The incident was captured on the station's CCTV.

Police later filed a case against the advocate for obstructing their duty. During the hearing of the advocate's petition challenging that FIR, the court viewed the CCTV footage and on April 17 ordered the registration of an FIR against Padmavathi and a thorough probe. The FIR was registered on May 5. Padmavathi then filed a petition on May 19 seeking to quash the FIR, and a Vacation Bench stayed the probe on May 21 without being informed that the FIR was based on the court's own direction.

The court described the CCTV footage as "an impartial witness" revealing two aspects: the advocate's disorderly conduct and the sub-inspector's disproportionate use of force. While the advocate's conduct was improper, the court found the sub-inspector's actions equally troubling.

The court dismissed Padmavathi's petition and directed the police to complete the probe and submit a report to the court. The ₹1 lakh fine was imposed for the concealment.