- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6096 WP No. 2170 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 2170 OF 2023 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SMT. K. NAGARATHNAMMA W/O. LATE M. SOMASHEKHAR, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 453, 8TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 086. 2. SMT. SUMATIDEVI D/O. K. RAMASWAMY, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 453/49, 8TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYAOUT, BENGALURU-560 086. 3. SMT. NANDINI W/O. PUNITH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.453, 8TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 086. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIVEK S. REDDY., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. CHANDRA KUMAR R.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE ADVOCATE GENERAL STATE OF KARNATAKA, CHAMBERS AT HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6096 WP No. 2170 of 2023 2. DR. SANJEEV M. PATIL, IPS., THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BENGALURU WEST DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 009. 3. SRI. NANJUNDEGOWDA ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, BASAVESHWARANAGARA, BENGALURU-560 079. 4. SRI. PRASHANTH. M., THE CIRCLE INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560 079. 5. SRI. HANUMANTHARAJU. B., THE SUB- INSPECTOR OF POLICE, KAMAKSHIPALYA POLICE STATION, BENGALURU-560 079. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA., AGA FOR R1; SRI. SATISH K.,ADVOCATE FOR R2 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 28.07.2022 ONE PASSED BY THE R1 ON AN CONSENT APPLICATION NO.11/2022 WHICH IS FOUND AT ANNEXURE-B1 AND THEREBY TO ALLOW THE GRANT TO INITIATE CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE R2 TO 5 AS WHO COMMITTED CRIMINAL CONTEMPT UNDER SECTION 15 OF THE CONTEMP OF COURTS ACT, 1971. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6096 WP No. 2170 of 2023 ORAL ORDER 1. This petition puts in issue the validity of opinion given by the Advocate General, as required under Section 15(1)(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, declining to grant the consent to initiate criminal contempt proceedings against the respondents. 2. It is settled position of law, consent given or declined by the Advocate General is non-justiceable order. That does not prevent parties from initiating the proceedings as contemplated under law. 3. Sri. Vivek Subba Reddy, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioner at this juncture seeks leave to withdraw the petition with liberty to move the Contempt Court. However, he submits that the time consumed in prosecuting this petition be exempted for the purpose of limitation. 4. Submission is taken on record. 5. Petition is disposed of as sought for, time consumed in this matter may have to be considered for the purpose of condonation of delay, if sought for. No opinion is expressed on the merits or otherwise of the case. Sd/- (M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE RL/- List No.: 2 Sl No.: 9