Karnataka HC Quashes Two Retaliatory Cases Against Man Who Reported Undocumented Migrants, Orders District Committees Statewide To Implement Immigration SOP

The petitioner reported to the police that persons whom he suspected to be Bangladeshi nationals were living in makeshift labour sheds in Bengaluru.

Two of those persons subsequently lodged separate complaints alleging assault, restraint and threats, resulting in Crime No. 488 of 2026 at Varthur Police Station and Crime No. 343 of 2026 at Bellanduru Police Station.

The petitioner challenged both FIRs under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and sought, in a connected writ petition, compensation for his arrest in Crime No. 343 of 2026 and directions concerning verification and deportation of persons allegedly staying unlawfully in India.

Interim stays of further investigation were granted. The FRRO informed the Court that the complainants were staying in India without lawful authority and were subject to movement restrictions.

The State relied on the allegations of assault to defend registration of the crimes, while the Union submitted that action would be taken under the applicable Standard Operating Procedure (SOP).

1. Whether the criminal proceedings in Crime Nos. 343 and 488 of 2026 were liable to be quashed as allegedly retaliatory and an abuse of process

2. Whether the State should be directed to ensure implementation of the SOP for dealing with persons suspected of unlawful immigration, including constitution and operation of District Level Committees

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to compensation for his arrest in Crime No. 343 of 2026

The Court applied the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and the principles in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335: criminal proceedings may be quashed, among other circumstances, where allegations are inherently improbable or proceedings are manifestly mala fide and instituted to wreak vengeance.

The Court also stated that immigration status alone does not deprive a person of the protection of Indian law, and that police must register information disclosing a cognizable offence; however, proceedings may be judicially scrutinised where the record indicates abuse of process.

It considered the MHA SOP dated 2 May 2025, which provides for identification, verification, detention and deportation procedures, and the statutory framework governing foreigners and unlawful entry or stay, including the Foreigners Act, 1946, and the Immigration and Foreigners Act, 2025, as described in the judgment.

The Court considered the timing of the complaints alongside the contemporaneous official records concerning the complainants’ immigration status.

In Crime No. 343, the Investigating Officer had communicated with the FRRO at 11:30 a.m. on 22 July 2026 regarding the complainant’s unauthorised stay; she lodged her assault complaint at 11:45 a.m. The Court found that chronology, together with the absence of contemporaneous material indicating injury, cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s bona fides.

In Crime No. 488, the complaint followed the petitioner’s report about the labour-shed residents, and the FRRO records supported his contention that the complainant was staying without lawful authority.

The Court emphasised that unlawful immigration did not extinguish the complainants’ right to legal protection, but concluded that the combined chronology and official material demonstrated that the criminal process was being used retaliatorily; continuation of the proceedings would therefore constitute an abuse of process under Bhajan Lal.

On the writ relief, the Court found that the record did not adequately establish whether the District Level Committees contemplated by the SOP had been constituted and were functioning, and directed the State to ensure their operationalisation and report compliance.

It disposed of the writ petition by directing the State to constitute and operationalise the District Level Committees required under the SOP in all districts where mandated, within three months, and to file a district-wise compliance report.

The order does not grant the petitioner’s requested compensation for his arrest.