- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27610 CRL.P No. 7311 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7311 OF 2026 BETWEEN: PADMAVATHI T B, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, D/O. LATE T.M. BHEEMAIAH, R/AT NO.204, E BLOCK, HOSUR ROAD, NEAR MUNESHWARA TEMPLE, BTM, ADUGODI, BENGALURU-560 030. …PETITIONER (BY SRI BALASUBRAMANYA B N, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU, REP BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. NABONITHA SEN, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, W/O. ANUV MOHANTY, R/AT NO.341, KHB COLONY, 5TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BENGALURU-560 076 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B N JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R-1) R Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27610 CRL.P No. 7311 of 2026 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNSS) TO QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT AND COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO.160/2026 REGISTERED BY THE MICO LAYOUT POLICE STATION, BENGALURU / 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 115(2), 118(1), 74, 352, 351(2) OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA, 2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE CMM COURT NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before the Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.160/2026, pending before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru, for offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 118(1), 74, 352 and 351(2) of the BNS. 2. Heard Sri Balasubramanya B.N., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1. 3. The impugned crime, so registered, is an offshoot of certain orders passed by this Court in the companion petition i.e., Crl.P.No.3695/2026, which is pending before this Court. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27610 CRL.P No. 7311 of 2026 The orders passed by this Court in Crl.P.No.3695/2026 on 06.04.2026, reads as follows: “Petitioner, a practicing advocate is the victim of the road rage incident. An auto driver on a road rage incident throws a boulder upon the car of the petitioner breaking the glass. The petitioner seeks to immediately register a crime before the jurisdictional police, but it is not taken. Therefore, had to invoke the jurisdiction of the learned Magistrate under Section 223 of the BNNS. In turn what the petitioner gets is a crime registered against her for having stopped the public servant from performing the duties, it is the other way round. There is assault on the petitioner which is clearly gathered from the CCTV footage and the wound certificate. Therefore, the learned Additional SPP to secure instructions and the names of those Police Officers who have misbehaved with the petitioner and place all materials before the Court on the next date. There shall be an interim order stay of all further proceedings in C.C.No.1292/2026 till the next date of hearing. List the matter on 10.04.2026 at 4.00 p.m. for further hearing.” The order passed on 10.04.2026, reads as follows: List this matter on 17.04.2026 at 1 p.m. for Further Hearing. Interim order granted earlier, stands extended till the next date of hearing. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27610 CRL.P No. 7311 of 2026 The order passed on 17.04.2026, reads as follows: The petitioner has approached this Hon’ble Court, invoking its inherent jurisdiction, to call into question the proceedings in C.C. No.1292 of 2026, wherein offences punishable under Sections 121(1), 132, 351(2), and 351(3) of the BNS have been alleged. 2. The genesis of the matter lies in an unfortunate incident of road rage that unfolded on the night of 23-02-2025. A seemingly trivial altercation between the petitioner and an auto-rickshaw driver escalated under the cover of darkness, in a locality bereft of adequate lighting. It is alleged that the auto driver, in a display of rashness, overtook the petitioner’s vehicle, forcibly brought it to a halt, and proceeded to hurl stones, thereby shattering the window glass of the petitioner’s car. 3. In the immediate aftermath of this unsettling episode, the petitioner drove to the nearby police station seeking the protection of law and the registration of a complaint. However, the response of the authorities was marked by inexplicable delay, as the complaint was not registered forthwith, but only after a lapse of nearly two hours. This inaction appears to have tested the petitioner’s patience, culminating in an outburst of frustration, during which certain papers and materials within the precincts of the police station were dislodged and scattered. 4. It is at this juncture that the Police Sub-Inspector, one Padmavathi of the Madiwala Traffic Police Station, who was on night patrol duty, arrived at the scene. What followed, however, was not a measured response befitting an officer of the law, but an act of physical aggression, wherein the petitioner was subjected to kicks. This incident, as fate would have it, stands recorded in the CCTV footage of the police station. 5. The CCTV footage, an impartial witness, reveals two distinct facets of the occurrence: firstly, the petitioner’s act of disorderly conduct within the police station, and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27610 CRL.P No. 7311 of 2026 secondly, the disproportionate and unwarranted use of force by the said Police Sub-Inspector. While the petitioner’s conduct is undeniably improper and cannot be countenanced by halting the legal proceedings, the actions of the Police Sub-Inspector are equally, if not more, troubling. 6. It is of particular significance that no formal complaint has been lodged by the petitioner against the said officer. Nevertheless, the visual record leaves little room for ambiguity - the Sub-Inspector is seen repeatedly kicking the petitioner without provocation or justification, seemingly in response to the minor disturbance caused. 7. In these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the matter transcends mere departmental impropriety. The conduct exhibited by the Police Sub- Inspector demands accountability of a more serious nature. It would be a travesty of justice where such actions to be met with only a perfunctory departmental enquiry. 8. Accordingly, this Court deems it appropriate to direct that a criminal case be registered against the said Police Sub-Inspector, followed by a thorough and impartial investigation. Compliance with this direction, including details of the registration of the crime and progress of the investigation, shall be reported to this Court on the next date of hearing. 9. Heard in part. List the matter on 05.06.2026 for further hearing. (Emphasis supplied) The incident of road rage lands the complainant before the jurisdictional police, in which the present petitioner was working as a Sub-Inspector. She was, in the wee hours of a particular day, called to the police station as the complainant, a - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27610 CRL.P No. 7311 of 2026 lady advocate was behaving erratically and therefore, a lady police personnel should handle the lady. The petitioner comes to the police station and boots the complainant. All these overt acts are captured in the CCTV and all of which are captured in the orders that are quoted hereinabove. 4. Pursuant to the direction issued by this Court for registration of a crime, apart from the conduct of a departmental enquiry for the overt acts of the petitioner, a separate petition is preferred i.e., the subject petition. A co- ordinate bench grants an interim order of stay of further investigation on 21.05.2026, on what pleading is necessary to be noticed. 5. The entire pleading, in the petition, is as follows: “1. The 2nd respondent filed a complaint before the 1st respondent police which is registered in Crime No.160/2026 on 05.05.2026 alleging that, the offence under section 115(2), 118(1), 74, 352, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 which is equivalent to sections 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 of Indian Penal Code against the petitioner. The 2nd respondent had stated that, on 23.02.2025 night about 9.30pm the car Number: KA-51-MA-7179 had been driven from Silk Board, Bannerghatta Road, which was overtaken by the auto- rickshaw and being followed the car. 2. On 29th Main Road, BTM junction there was quarrel in between them the auto driver took a cement tile and hit - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27610 CRL.P No. 7311 of 2026 the behind the glass of the car. On account of that, the glass was damaged since the auto-rickshaw was new one there was no number plate existed. 3. Immediately 112/100 was called and Mico Layout Police Station, of Hoysala Vehicle came to the spot. The police officials Muralidhar, Kiran Kumar came to the spot and questioned the auto man. At about 30 munities the police has not taken any action and the police directed to approach Mico Layout Traffic Police. Muralidhar and the 2nd respondent sat in the car and went to the police station. After discussion about 1 hour, Muralidhar and Kiran Kumar were insulted till late night. 4. Night at about 11.30 the traffic police left out the lady in the police station and later the piece of glasses which was damaged and picked up and kept the side. The Traffic WPSI Padmavathi the petitioner got registered the case drink and drive case without any enquiry and after 45 munities she was assaulted. 5. The body camera was being put on and put off and directed Muralidhar and Kiran Kumar to take pictures at that time, the 2nd respondent assaulted. Without any offence being committed and the dress was torn, the chest and the internal dress and further pull the heir and pushed into the wall and caused injuries on the ear which was bleed, assaulted with hand and kicked for about 45 munities. The 2nd respondent even though called the 100 telephone number on 24.02.2025 at about 1.30 late evening assaulted the lady thereby action was sought against the petitioner, Kiran Kumar, Muralidhar by the 2nd respondent. The aforesaid Muralidhar and Kiran Kumar both are Assistant Sub-Inspector and Traffic Police Constable of Mico Layout Traffic Police Station, Bengaluru. 6. The 1st respondent police registered the case on 05.05.2026 for the aforesaid offences. The copy of the First Information Report and Complaint are produced for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 7. Mr. Muralidhar, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Traffic Police, Mico Layout Police filed complaint against the 2nd respondent on 24.02.2025 at 11.45am for the offences punishable under sections 132, 351(2), 351(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 in Crime No.62/2025. The - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27610 CRL.P No. 7311 of 2026 offences stated therein are 353, 503, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. In the said complaint the aforesaid Muralidhar filed a complaint stating that, on 23.02.2025 night they were on night duty along with Constable Kiran Kumar. Same night at about 10:45pm the 2nd main junction BMW car a lady being driving stood on the roadside and creating disturbance. The said Muralidhar went to the spot and found blue color BMW car bearing No:KA-51-MQ-7179 parked on the road side and the driver lady was shouting very high. On enquiry she was not answering properly about the incident, further on enquiry it found the auto-rickshaw driver reported that, the auto-rickshaw was damaged by the car driver and found the glasses of the car was also damaged. The lady of the car driver she unable to stand, the people collected therein also said that, she should not be right free as she is drunk at about 11.30pm she was brought to the police station and while checking about her consuming liquor, she also shouted at the police officers and refused to assist them. The book maintained in the police station were thrown and chairs also pulled down and abusing the police officers in Hindi also abused stating their all Nalayaks, unfit. The petitioner was working as a night duty at UCO Bank Junction and she called up the control room, while examining her she was also used abused language and assaulted the petitioner and caused Injuries on the petitioner and the police officers therein were unable to control her and 3 Hoysala police cars were also brought to the place. 8. The 1st respondent police after collecting the evidence had filed charge sheet in CC.No.1292/2026 for the offences punishable under sections 121(1), 132, 151(2) and 151(3) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 against the 2nd respondent. The certified copy of the charge sheet produced for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 9. The 2nd respondent used abused language and assaulted the all the officers therein and the act of the 2nd respondent is recorded in CCTV camera. Pursuant to that, the Mico Layout Police have registered the Crime No.62/2025 aforesaid offences. 10. The injured certificate of the petitioner dated 24.02.2025 issued by the General Hospital, Jayanagara, - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27610 CRL.P No. 7311 of 2026 Bengaluru is produced for kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 11. The petitioner who arrayed as Accused No.1 has filed the above criminal petition before this Hon'ble Court seeking to quash the First Information Report and Complaint in Crime No.160/2026 registered by the Mico Layout Police Station, Bengaluru / 1st respondent for the offence under section 115(2), 118(1), 74, 352, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending on the file of the Hon'ble CMM Court Nrupathunga Road, Bengaluru, on the following amongst other grounds. 12. The petitioner has not filed similar petition before this Hon'ble Court or any other Court seeking the same relief against the respondents. GROUNDS 13. The petitioner is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in Crime No.160/2026. 14. The case was registered against the 2nd respondent on 24.02.2025 in Crime No.62/2025. The case against the petitioner came to be registered in Crime No.160/2025 on 05.05.2026 which is beyond 1 year 3 months. 15. Strangely with high influence of one Sathyakumar claimed to be Private Assistant of a Minister influencing the other superior police officials are implicating this petitioner for the best reasons known to him. The officials of Mico Layout Police are harassing, Humiliate the petitioner on several occasions at the behest of the aforesaid Sathyakumar. 16. The petitioner is a female Sub-Inspector of Police, working in Bengaluru now presently attending as a Security Official for former Prime Minister of India Srl.H.D.Devegowda. The earlier duty being carried out by the petitioner is being now harassed, humiliated Chethana, unnecessarily by tarnishing the image. It is very interesting to state that, the petitioner awarded Ekalavya, Karnataka Chethana, Nadashree, Shivaji Chathrapathi, CM medals etc. These achievements were all gained by the petitioner by her sincere hard work. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27610 CRL.P No. 7311 of 2026 17. The petitioner reserve for right to prosecute the sald Sathyakumar for falsely implicating the petitioner with the senior police officials. 18. The First Information Report after 1 year 3 months discloses that, the petitioner is innocent and she has been falsely implicated in the Instant case. As such, it is just required to quash to First Information Report and Complaint. 19. That the present case is under investigation stage and the 1st respondent police have yet to file charge sheet.” 6. A perusal of the afore-extracted pleadings would unmistakably reveal a startling omission of no ordinary consequence. There is not even the faintest whisper, much less a candid disclosure, of the orders passed by this Court, extracted hereinabove, pursuant to the impugned crime came to be registered against the petitioner. The entire edifice of the subject petition is thus erected upon a carefully curated narrative, suppressing the very fact that constitute the genesis of the criminal proceedings. 7. What becomes immediately evident is that the registration of the impugned crime is not an independent or spontaneous act of the investigating agency; it is a direct consequence of a judicial command issued by this Court, upon noticing material of grave concern, particularly the CCTV - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27610 CRL.P No. 7311 of 2026 footage which captured the overt acts of the petitioner. It was only upon judicial scrutiny of such material that this Court found it necessary to direct registration of a criminal case and a consequential investigation. 8. Despite this undeniable backdrop, the petitioner, while invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court, has chosen to maintain studied silence regarding the very order that forms the foundation of the proceedings she now seeks to assail. Such silence cannot be dismissed as inadvertence. It is suppression of a material fact, particularly one, that goes to the root of the lis, strikes at the very sanctity of proceedings before Court. A litigant who approaches the Court seeking equitable or discretionary relief is bound by the cardinal duty of utmost candour, complete disclosure, and absolute fairness. 9. The jurisdiction of this Court is not meant to be invoked by those who selectively disclose facts convenient to their cause while withholding facts destructive of their case. The stream of justice, to borrow the oft-quoted expression, must remain pure and unsullied; any attempt to pollute it by suppression, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27610 CRL.P No. 7311 of 2026 distortion, or calculated concealment cannot receive judicial imprimatur. 10. The petitioner, in the case at hand, has secured an interim order by withholding the very foundation of the impugned proceedings—namely, the order dated 17.04.2026 passed by this Court in Criminal Petition No.3695/2026. The concealment is not peripheral; it is foundational. Had the co- ordinate Bench been apprised that the registration of the impugned crime was not a routine police action but one born out of a specific judicial direction issued 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. 11. An interim order obtained by suppression of material facts is, in the eye of law, a fragile edifice built upon shifting sands. Such an order cannot be permitted to survive merely because it has been obtained under the cloak of incomplete disclosure. Courts have consistently held that suppression of material facts amounts to an - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27610 CRL.P No. 7311 of 2026 abuse of the process of law and disentitles the litigant from any equitable relief. 12. It becomes apposite to refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PRESTIGE LIGHTS LTD. v. SBI1, wherein it is observed as follows: “……. ……. ……. 33. It is thus clear that though the appellant Company had approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, it had not candidly stated all the facts to the Court. The High Court is exercising discretionary and extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. Over and above, a court of law is also a court of equity. It is, therefore, of utmost necessity that when a party approaches a High Court, he must place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts on the part of the applicant or twisted facts have been placed before the Court, the writ court may refuse to entertain the petition and dismiss it without entering into merits of the matter. 34. The object underlying the above principle has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commrs. [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA)] , in the following words: “[I]t has been for many years the rule of the court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts—facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it—the court is 1 (2007) 8 SCC 449 - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27610 CRL.P No. 7311 of 2026 supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts, and the penalty by which the court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the court will set aside, any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement.” (emphasis supplied) 35. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a writ court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the court, the court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.” (Emphasis supplied) 12.1. Subsequently, the Apex Court in the case of K.D. SHARMA v. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED2, observes as follows: “…. …. …. 34. The jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 32 and of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary. Prerogative writs mentioned therein are issued for doing substantial justice. It 2 (2008) 12 SCC 481 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27610 CRL.P No. 7311 of 2026 is, therefore, of utmost necessity that the petitioner approaching the writ court must come with clean hands, put forward all the facts before the court without concealing or suppressing anything and seek an appropriate relief. If there is no candid disclosure of relevant and material facts or the petitioner is guilty of misleading the court, his petition may be dismissed at the threshold without considering the merits of the claim. 35. The underlying object has been succinctly stated by Scrutton, L.J., in the leading case of R. v. Kensington Income Tax Commrs. [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA)] in the following words: (KB p. 514) “… it has been for many years the rule of the court, and one which it is of the greatest importance to maintain, that when an applicant comes to the court to obtain relief on an ex parte statement he should make a full and fair disclosure of all the material facts—it says facts, not law. He must not misstate the law if he can help it—the court is supposed to know the law. But it knows nothing about the facts, and the applicant must state fully and fairly the facts; and the penalty by which the court enforces that obligation is that if it finds out that the facts have not been fully and fairly stated to it, the court will set aside any action which it has taken on the faith of the imperfect statement.” (emphasis supplied) 36. A prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. While exercising extraordinary power a writ court would certainly bear in mind the conduct of the party who invokes the jurisdiction of the court. If the applicant makes a false statement or suppresses material fact or attempts to mislead the court, the court may dismiss the action on that ground alone and may refuse to enter into the merits of the case by stating, “We will not listen to your application because of what you have done.” The rule has been evolved in the larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of court by deceiving it. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27610 CRL.P No. 7311 of 2026 37. In Kensington Income Tax Commrs. [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA)] Viscount Reading, C.J. observed: (KB pp. 495-96) “… Where an ex parte application has been made to this Court for a rule nisi or other process, if the Court comes to the conclusion that the affidavit in support of the application was not candid and did not fairly state the facts, but stated them in such a way as to mislead the Court as to the true facts, the Court ought, for its own protection and to prevent an abuse of its process, to refuse to proceed any further with the examination of the merits. This is a power inherent in the Court, but one which should only be used in cases which bring conviction to the mind of the Court that it has been deceived. Before coming to this conclusion a careful examination will be made of the facts as they are and as they have been stated in the applicant's affidavit, and everything will be heard that can be urged to influence the view of the Court when it reads the affidavit and knows the true facts. But if the result of this examination and hearing is to leave no doubt that the Court has been deceived, then it will refuse to hear anything further from the applicant in a proceeding which has only been set in motion by means of a misleading affidavit.” (emphasis supplied) 38. The above principles have been accepted in our legal system also. As per settled law, the party who invokes the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is supposed to be truthful, frank and open. He must disclose all material facts without any reservation even if they are against him. He cannot be allowed to play “hide and seek” or to “pick and choose” the facts he likes to disclose and to suppress (keep back) or not to disclose (conceal) other facts. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true and complete (correct) facts. If material facts are suppressed or distorted, the very functioning of writ courts and exercise would become impossible. The petitioner must disclose all the facts having a bearing on the - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27610 CRL.P No. 7311 of 2026 relief sought without any qualification. This is because “the court knows law but not facts”. 39. If the primary object as highlighted in Kensington Income Tax Commrs. [(1917) 1 KB 486 : 86 LJKB 257 : 116 LT 136 (CA)] is kept in mind, an applicant who does not come with candid facts and “clean breast” cannot hold a writ of the court with “soiled hands”. Suppression or concealment of material facts is not an advocacy. It is a jugglery, manipulation, manoeuvring or misrepresentation, which has no place in equitable and prerogative jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose all the material facts fairly and truly but states them in a distorted manner and misleads the court, the court has inherent power in order to protect itself and to prevent an abuse of its process to discharge the rule nisi and refuse to proceed further with the examination of the case on merits. If the court does not reject the petition on that ground, the court would be failing in its duty. In fact, such an applicant requires to be dealt with for contempt of court for abusing the process of the court.” (Emphasis supplied) In the afore-quoted judgments, the Apex Court has clearly held that in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not just a court of law, but is also a court of equity and a person who invokes the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is duty-bound to place all the facts before the Court without any reservation. If there is suppression of material facts or twisted facts have been placed before the High Court then it will be fully - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27610 CRL.P No. 7311 of 2026 justified in refusing to entertain a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13. The conduct of the petitioner, therefore, does not merely reflect omission; it borders on abuse of jurisdiction. The extraordinary remedy under Section 528 of the BNSS or Article 226 of the Constitution is a discretionary remedy, and discretion of the Court can never be invoked by one whose hands are tainted by suppression. They who seek equity must come with clean hands; a litigant who approaches with concealed hands cannot seek the Court’s indulgence. 14. Viewed thus, the interim order secured by the petitioner stands vitiated at its very inception, having been obtained by suppressing the foundational judicial order in Criminal Petition No.3695/2026. Such suppression, by itself, is sufficient to non-suit the petitioner, with exemplary costs - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:27610 CRL.P No. 7311 of 2026 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER a. The criminal petition stands dismissed, with exemplary costs of ₹1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to be paid by the petitioner to the Karnataka Legal Service Authority within a period of eight weeks from today. b. The investigation shall continue and after the conduct of investigation, the result of investigation shall be placed before this Court, prior to placing it before the concerned Court. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 2