“You will go in your Lamborghini, sweep the streets, and come back in your Lamborghini”: Karnataka HC on Community Service in Reckless Driving Case

Karnataka: The Karnataka High Court has orally indicated its intention to quash a criminal case registered against the owner of a green Lamborghini for reckless driving, provided the individual undertakes community service.

Justice M. Nagaprasanna, while presiding over the single-judge bench, expressed a willingness to close the proceedings against Chiranth B.R., a 27-year-old resident of Bengaluru.

The case stemmed from a viral video captured in December 2025, which depicted a Lamborghini Aventador SVJ being driven at high speeds and manoeuvring zig-zag through traffic on the Bengaluru–Mysuru Road near Kengeri. The footage, which gained significant traction on social media platforms, prompted the Kengeri Traffic Police to register a suo motu FIR under Section 281 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) for rash and negligent driving.

The incident occurred on December 14, 2025, during an expedition organised by a Lamborghini dealership in Bengaluru that involved a convoy of thirteen luxury vehicles travelling from Mysuru to Coorg. According to the petitioner’s counsel, the driver was at the rear of the convoy and had lagged behind due to heavy traffic. The defence argued that the driver was merely attempting to rejoin the group and, while travelling “a little fast,” did not cause any accident or harm to other road users or property. It was further emphasised that the entire action was recorded by a dash camera in a nearby vehicle, which formed the primary basis for the police action.

A significant point of contention in the proceedings was the prior administrative resolution of the traffic violations. The court noted that the driver had already paid a fine of ₹8,500 to traffic authorities for the incident, a payment made more than a month before the criminal FIR was registered. This fine reportedly covered various violations, including the use of an aftermarket exhaust system that allegedly exceeded permissible sound limits. The petitioner’s counsel, Advocate Rajath, informed the court that the retrofitted silencer had since been removed and the vehicle was now in compliance with Road Transport Office (RTO) directives.

The High Court had previously stayed the investigation into the matter in January 2026, questioning the necessity of a criminal prosecution after administrative penalties had been satisfied. During the recent hearing, Justice Nagaprasanna shifted the focus toward a restorative justice approach, as provided under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The BNSS, which replaced the older Code of Criminal Procedure, explicitly introduces community service as a viable alternative penalty for minor offences to avoid the stigma and costs associated with prolonged criminal litigation.

During a light-hearted exchange in the courtroom, the judge asked the petitioner’s counsel what form of community service the driver would be willing to perform. Justice Nagaprasanna then observed, “You will go in your Lamborghini, sweep the streets, and come back in your Lamborghini.”

In response to the court’s query, counsel for the petitioner suggested that Chiranth could undertake the task of teaching schoolchildren about traffic rules and signals. However, this suggestion was met with skepticism from both the bench and the State’s counsel. Justice Nagaprasanna noted the irony of the proposal, jokingly remarking that children might instead learn how to violate traffic rules from someone accused of doing just that.

Alternative suggestions were proposed during the hearing, including environmental work such as planting saplings. The court referenced a previous instance where a doctor found guilty of contempt of court was ordered to provide free service at a government hospital as an example of appropriate community service aligned with one’s professional standing. Ultimately, while the court orally agreed to quash the FIR, it reserved the final decision on the specific nature and duration of the community service for its detailed written order.

Case Title: Chiranth B.R. v. State of Karnataka & Anr.