Karnataka High Court
WA/1222/2026 of DR. K J PURUSHOTHAM REDDY Vs SRI SATHESH KUMAR K R on 2 September 2026
CNR: KAHC010284912026 NC: 2026:KHC:47722-DB WA No. 1222 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL NO.1222 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
WRIT APPEAL NO.1222 OF 2026 (GM-POLICE)
BETWEEN:
DR. K.J. PURUSHOTHAM REDDY
S/O K.B. JAYARAMA REDDY,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.327, 8TH BLOCK,
1A MAIN, KORAMANGALA,
BENGALURU – 560095.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI RANGANATH REDDY R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
SRI SATHEESH KUMAR K.R.
S/O LATE RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
R/AT APARTMENT NO.301,
BUILDING NO.77, TAMARA,
2ND MAIN ROAD, 1ST CROSS ROAD,
DEFENCE COLONY,
BENGALURU – 560038.
2.
COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD,
OPPOSITE SPARSHA HOSPITAL,
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M
Location: High Court
of Karnataka
HC-KAR
3.
ADDITIONAL / JOINT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE
(CRIME DIVISION)
NO.1, INFANTRY ROAD,
OPPOSITE SPARSHA HOSPITAL,
BENGALURU - 560001.
4.
THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
OF POLICE (CCB - OCW)
NEW CCB OFFICE, NO. 95,
BTS BUS DEPOT ROAD,
VINAYAKA NAGAR, KSRTC COLONY,
WILSON GARDEN,
BENGALURU – 560027.
5.
STATION HOUSE OFFICER
INDIRANAGAR POLICE STATION,
OLD MADRAS ROAD, BINNAMANGALA,
HOYSALA NAGAR,
BENGALURU – 560038.
6.
STATION HOUSE OFFICER
MADIWALA POLICE STATION,
BTM 1ST STAGE,
BENGALURU – 560068.
7.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE (EAST DIVISION)
CAMBRIDGE LAYOUT, HALASURU,
BENGALURU – 560008.
8.
STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOME,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
…RESPONDENTS
(BY MS. SPOORTHY COTHA, ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PAARAS PANDEY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1;
SRI S.R. KHAMROZ KHAN, AGA FOR R-2 – R-8)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 10.03.2026 PASSED IN W.P.NO.7923/2026 BY THE
HC-KAR
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT VIDE
ANNEXURE AND ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)
1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning the order dated 10.03.2026 [the impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.7923/2026 [GM-POLICE]. The said writ petition was filed by respondent No.1, inter alia, seeking a declaration, direction and order that the preliminary enquiry being conducted by the Assistant Commissioner of Police [respondent No.4] was illegal and without lawful authority. Respondent No.1 had also sought a direction for registration of a First Information Report [the FIR] based on his complaint dated 12.12.2025.
2. The said petition was allowed in part by the impugned order, directing the concerned Police Authorities to examine and act upon the complaints dated 12.12.2025, 27.02.2026 and take appropriate
HC-KAR
steps in accordance with law, having due regard to the amended provisions of Section 4 of the Karnataka Prohibition of Charging Exorbitant Interest Act, 2004 [the Act].
3. The learned Single Judge observed that the amendment to Section 4 of the Act prescribed punishment extending up to three years. However, the punishment has since been enhanced and the provision now prescribes imprisonment which may extend to ten years. In the aforesaid context, the learned Single Judge observed that the Investigating Officer cannot confine the matter to a preliminary enquiry. The Police Authorities have since registered an FIR on 05.04.2026, and the complaint is being investigated.
4. It is the appellant’s case that the respondent was required to exhaust all remedies for registration of an FIR before approaching the Court. The appellant, however, does not dispute that, once an FIR has been registered, the same cannot be quashed in the present proceedings. He, however, submits that directions be issued to the effect that the investigation be carried out independently and in accordance with law.
HC-KAR
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents have no objection to the said observation.
6. In view of the above, the appeal is disposed of by directing the concerned authorities to carry out the investigation independently and in accordance with law.
Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE
Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE
AT List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22