Karnataka HC fines woman PSI ₹1 lakh for securing stay on FIR by hiding court’s own order for probe against her

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

Justice M. Nagaprasanna passed the order while dismissing the petition filed by the sub-inspector, Padmavathi T.B, who had challenged the FIR registered against her on the very direction issued by the High Court itself in April.

‘Studied silence’

The petitioner had “maintained studied silence” and not even whispered about the orders passed by the High Court in an earlier petition directing the registration of a criminal case against her after reviewing CCTV footage that captured her physically assaulting a lady advocate inside a police station in Bengaluru city.

“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 observed.

The issue originates from a road rage incident on February 23, 2025, when the advocate’s car was allegedly damaged by an auto-rickshaw driver.

Drama in station

When the advocate approached the Mico Layout Traffic Police Station to lodge complaint against the autorickshaw driver, the police allegedly delayed registering her complaint. As a result, the advocate, out of frustration, behaved erratically dislodging certain papers. It was at this juncture Padmavathi was called to the station during the wee hours as the advocate was behaving erratically. On reaching the station, Padmavathi kicked the advocate repeatedly without any provocation and this act was captured on CCTV installed in the station.

Later, the police also registered a case against the advocate for obstructing the police from discharging their duty.

It was during the hearing of the petition filed by the advocate, Nabonitha Sen, challenging the FIR registered against her, that the court viewed the CCTV footage, which showed conduct of both the advocate and the sub-inspector. Following this, the court on April 17 ordered registration of FIR against Padmavathi also for her conduct and ordered for a thorough and impartial probe.

The FIR was registered against Padmavathi on May 5, and she filed the petition before the High Court challenging the FIR on May 19, and a Vacation Bench of the High Court on May 21 stayed the probe as she had not disclosed in her petition that the FIR was registered based on court’s own direction.

‘Impartial witness’

The court has noted that the “CCTV footage, an impartial witness, reveals two distinct facets of the occurrence: firstly, the advocate’s act of disorderly conduct within the police station, and secondly, the disproportionate and unwarranted use of force by the sub-inspector. While the advocate’s conduct is undeniably improper and cannot be countenanced by halting the legal proceedings, the actions of the sub-inspector are equally, if not more, troubling.”

The court dismissed the sub-inspector’s petition while directing the police to complete the probe against her and submit report to the court.