Crime Bengaluru

Advocate, woman clash at Karnataka High Court; cross-FIRs filed

Bengaluru police registered two cross-FIRs after an advocate and a woman clashed on the Karnataka High Court premises during mediation proceedings on Wednesday afternoon. Advocate Sulakshana Darpan, 45, alleged Shravani Reddy, her mother Radha Reddy and four to five unidentified people abused, pushed and dragged her by her gown and threatened to kill her. Shravani Reddy, 24, counter-alleged that Sulakshana and her husband Darpan pushed, abused and threatened to kill them over money demanded. Police said no arrests have been made.

Written by AI from Indian Express — Cities · not yet reviewed by an editor · Published 24 Sept 2026, 8:18 pm IST

Source

Indian Express — Cities · read the original report ↗

#karnataka high court#cross-fir#bengaluru police#advocate#mediation

Desk check · some claims need care

What the desk checked (5)

Two cross-FIRs were registered after an altercation on the Karnataka High Court premises on Wednesday afternoon. — Stated in source as police action; figure and timing appear in source.
Advocate Sulakshana Darpan, 45, alleged Shravani Reddy, her mother Radha Reddy and four to five unidentified people abused, pushed and dragged her and threatened to kill her. — Attributed to Sulakshana's complaint; allegation not independently established.
Shravani Reddy, 24, alleged Sulakshana and her husband Darpan pushed, abused and threatened to kill her and her mother over money allegedly owed. — Attributed to the counter-complaint; allegation unproven.
Charges include criminal intimidation, intentional insult to provoke breach of peace, wrongful restraint and the Karnataka Prohibition of Violence Against Advocates Act. — Sections as listed in source; no FIR numbers or statute sections given.
No arrests have been made so far. — Quoted to an unnamed Vidhana Soudha police officer.

Written by AI from Indian Express — Cities · not yet reviewed by an editor · How we use AI · Report an error

Analysts’ view opinion

AI Legal Analyst

What looks like a minor scuffle carries real legal weight because of where it allegedly happened — inside High Court premises, during mediation proceedings. When cross-FIRs are registered, the police are not in a position to declare one complaint true and the other false; the usual course is parallel investigation of both, with the evidence eventually placed before a court. Registering an FIR confirms nothing — it only starts an investigation.

The inclusion of a charge under the Karnataka Prohibition of Violence Against Advocates Act, alongside criminal intimidation and intentional insult to provoke a breach of peace, changes the character of Sulakshana's case, since that special statute is designed to give advocates added protection in the discharge of professional duties.
Shravani Reddy's counter-complaint has been booked for criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint and intentional insult — meaning, in law, both sides currently stand as persons against whom allegations are recorded.
In cross-FIR situations the decisive question is usually who was the aggressor, and neutral material — CCTV, independent eyewitnesses, medical records of injuries — tends to determine the direction of the probe.
The money dispute referred to in the complaint is civil in nature, and courts have repeatedly cautioned against converting civil disputes into criminal cases, so that strand may attract separate scrutiny.
The police statement that no arrests have been made matters: for offences carrying lesser punishment, arrest is not automatic, and procedural alternatives such as notice to appear for questioning are available.

What to watch — Watch the CCTV footage, witness statements and any medical evidence gathered in both cases — their strength will decide which complaint moves towards a chargesheet and which towards closure or quashing; any response from bar associations could also open a wider debate on court-premises security.

The story does not establish that any allegation is true, does not settle who initiated the altercation, and does not clarify the nature of the alleged money dispute or whether independent evidence exists.

Deep dive

Research brief · 8 facts · 5 dates · exam-ready

The brief

Context

Two cross-FIRs were registered by Bengaluru police after a scuffle on the Karnataka High Court premises during mediation proceedings on Wednesday afternoon. Advocate Sulakshana Darpan, 45, alleged she was abused, pushed and dragged by her advocate's gown by Shravani Reddy, her mother Radha Reddy and four to five unidentified persons near Court Hall No. 35. Shravani Reddy, 24, filed a counter-complaint alleging that Sulakshana and her husband Darpan abused, pushed and threatened to kill her and her mother over money allegedly owed. The Vidhana Soudha police are examining both complaints; no arrests have been made.

Key facts

Two cross-FIRs were registered by Bengaluru police over an altercation on the Karnataka High Court premises during mediation proceedings on Wednesday afternoon.
Complainant 1: advocate Sulakshana Darpan, 45; she named Shravani Reddy, mother Radha Reddy and four to five unidentified persons.
Sulakshana says she was confronted between 3 pm and 3.05 pm in front of Court Hall No. 35 on Dr B R Ambedkar Veedhi.
She alleged abuse, pushing, assault, grabbing of her advocate's gown, being dragged in public, and a threat to kill her if she stepped out of court premises.
FIR on her complaint: criminal intimidation, intentional insult intended to provoke breach of peace, and a charge under the Karnataka Prohibition of Violence Against Advocates Act.
Counter-complaint by Shravani Reddy, 24: she and her mother were seated outside Court Hall No. 26 around 3 pm when the couple confronted them.
Shravani alleged the couple questioned their presence at the mediation, refused to repay money owed, pushed them, attempted assault, verbally abused and threatened to kill them.
Sulakshana and Darpan were booked for criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint and intentional insult intended to provoke breach of peace; no arrests so far, per a Vidhana Soudha police officer.

Timeline

Wednesday, around 3 pmPer Shravani Reddy's counter-complaint, Sulakshana Darpan and her husband confronted her and her mother outside Court Hall No. 26 during mediation proceedings.
Wednesday, 3 pm to 3.05 pmPer advocate Sulakshana Darpan's complaint, she was confronted, abused and dragged in front of Court Hall No. 35 on Dr B R Ambedkar Veedhi.
Wednesday (after the incident)Police registered an FIR on Sulakshana's complaint, including a charge under the Karnataka Prohibition of Violence Against Advocates Act.
Later the same dayShravani Reddy filed a counter-complaint; Sulakshana and Darpan were booked for criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint and intentional insult.
As reportedVidhana Soudha police said both complaints and the circumstances are being examined; no arrests made so far.

Who has a stake

Advocate Sulakshana Darpan, 45 — Complainant who alleges assault, public humiliation involving her advocate's gown and a death threat; also an accused in the counter-FIR.
Shravani Reddy, 24, and mother Radha Reddy — Named accused in the first FIR; Shravani is complainant in the counter-FIR alleging assault, abuse and death threats over money demanded.
Darpan (husband of Sulakshana) — Accused in the counter-complaint of pushing, attempting assault, verbal abuse and threatening to kill the mother and daughter.
Vidhana Soudha police, Bengaluru — Investigating agency examining both complaints and the circumstances of the altercation; yet to make any arrest.
Karnataka High Court — Institution on whose premises, near Court Halls 26 and 35, the altercation occurred during mediation proceedings.
Advocates as a professional class — Invocation of the Karnataka Prohibition of Violence Against Advocates Act tests protection available to lawyers at work.

Why it matters

An altercation inside the Karnataka High Court complex, during court-annexed mediation meant to defuse disputes, raises questions about safety and decorum in judicial precincts. The use of the Karnataka Prohibition of Violence Against Advocates Act alongside a counter-FIR shows how the same incident can be framed as both an attack on an officer of the court and a private money dispute. Cross-FIRs also test police impartiality, since each side is simultaneously complainant and accused.

UPSC angle

Prelims pointers

Cross-FIRs: two FIRs registered on rival complaints arising from the same incident, each side accusing the other.
The Karnataka Prohibition of Violence Against Advocates Act was invoked in the FIR filed on the advocate's complaint.
Charges in the first FIR: criminal intimidation and intentional insult intended to provoke breach of peace, plus the advocates' protection law.
Charges against the advocate and her husband: criminal intimidation, wrongful restraint and intentional insult intended to provoke breach of peace.
Investigating police station: Vidhana Soudha police, Bengaluru; the Karnataka High Court is on Dr B R Ambedkar Veedhi.
The clash occurred during mediation proceedings, near Court Hall No. 26 and Court Hall No. 35.

Mains framing

The Bengaluru cross-FIRs illustrate how private financial disputes can spill into judicial precincts and even into court-annexed mediation, which is designed precisely to resolve conflict without confrontation. Two competing narratives exist: the advocate alleges she was abused, assaulted, dragged by her gown and threatened with death, prompting invocation of the Karnataka Prohibition of Violence Against Advocates Act, a special statute recognising that lawyers face occupational hazards while discharging professional duties; the other side alleges the advocate and her husband threatened and assaulted them over money allegedly owed, leading to charges of criminal intimidation and wrongful restraint. The implications are twofold: first, security and decorum within high court premises, where mediation participants and lawyers mingle in open corridors; second, the challenge of cross-FIRs for investigators, who must test both versions on evidence such as CCTV, witnesses and medical records rather than treating professional status as determinative. The way forward, on the facts available, lies in an impartial, time-bound inquiry by the Vidhana Soudha police, verification of the underlying money claim through legal remedies, and stricter regulation of conduct in court corridors; the source does not state any policy or administrative response beyond the ongoing examination of both complaints and the absence of arrests.

Key terms

Cross-FIR: Two First Information Reports registered on mutually accusing complaints arising from the same incident.
Karnataka Prohibition of Violence Against Advocates Act: State law invoked here to penalise violence or intimidation against advocates; cited in the FIR on the lawyer's complaint.
Criminal intimidation: Threatening a person with injury to compel action or cause alarm; charged against both sides in this case.
Wrongful restraint: Obstructing a person from proceeding in a direction they have a right to go; charged against the advocate and her husband.
Mediation proceedings: Court-linked process where a neutral mediator helps disputing parties settle; the setting of this altercation.
Vidhana Soudha police: Bengaluru police station whose jurisdiction covers the Karnataka High Court area and which is investigating both complaints.

Practice questions

Cross-FIRs in the same incident pose distinct challenges for fair investigation. Discuss with reference to the Bengaluru High Court altercation case.
Do special laws protecting advocates from violence strengthen the administration of justice, or risk unequal treatment before the law? Examine.
Court-annexed mediation aims to reduce adversarial conflict. What institutional safeguards are needed to ensure safety and decorum in court premises during such proceedings?

Grounded only in the source report — figures and dates are the source's, not inferred.

Next storyGandhinagar court grants bail to journalist Ravi Nair →

← All stories