NEW DELHI: The Karnataka high court has dismissed a petition filed by a woman Sub-Inspector seeking to quash an FIR arising from allegations that she kicked a woman advocate inside a police station, while also imposing a fine of Rs 1 lakh on the officer for allegedly hiding crucial evidence from the court.Justice M. Nagaprasanna of the Karnataka high court found that the officer had approached a vacation bench seeking a stay on the investigation without disclosing an earlier judicial order that had already directed the registration of an FIR against her.The court held that such suppression of material facts amounted to an abuse of the judicial process and warranted exemplary costs.The case arose from an earlier petition filed by a woman advocate who had sought to quash an FIR against her for unruly behaviour inside a police station following a road rage incident.While hearing that petition on April 17, 2026, the high court viewed CCTV footage from the station, which revealed that the Sub-Inspector had repeatedly kicked the advocate. The court then directed that a criminal case be registered against the police officer as well, observing that such conduct could not be addressed by just a departmental inquiry.Despite the existence of that earlier order, the officer subsequently approached the high court’s vacation bench on May 21, 2026, and secured an interim stay on the investigation — without disclosing the prior order that had directed registration of the FIR against her.When the suppression came to light, the high court took a firm view of the omission. The court observed that a litigant seeking equitable relief must approach the court with clean hands and make full disclosure of all relevant facts.Rejecting the officer’s plea, the court vacated the protection granted earlier and allowed the investigation to proceed. It also directed the officer to pay Rs 1 lakh as costs to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KLSA) within eight weeks, noting that allegations of assault on a lawyer by a police official could not be brushed aside without a proper probe.The ruling reinforces the principle that courts will not tolerate suppression of material facts, particularly in cases involving alleged police misconduct and interference with the administration of justice.