Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 17 To July 23

ABC And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 267

Neha Rafiq Chahchadi And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 268

H N Nagarajegowda & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 269

Sri. Veeranjaneya Dharma Jagruthi Balaga & Other And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 270

N L Manjunatha & ANR AND B L Ananda. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 271

Arnaud Descamps And Onmobile Global Limited. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 272

D B Ramesh @ Doni Ramesh And State by Excise Police. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 273

Karnataka State Law University And Krishna. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 274

Judgments/Orders

Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Juvenile Accused Of Sexual Offence, Says Mother Fit Person To Keep Him Under Custody

Case Title: ABC And State of Karnataka & ANR Case No:

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100453 OF 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 267

The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to a juvenile accused of committing penetrative sexual assault on a minor, directing his mother to execute personal bond and surety bond and undertake to ensure the juvenile does not waste his time in "unproductive and excessive recreational pursuits".

The direction was passed by a single bench of Justice Anil B Katti upon noticing that the triple test under Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice Act is not satisfied in this case. Reliance was placed on Allahabad High Court's decision in XXX Juvenile v. State of UP which held that juvenile has to be released on bail mandatorily unless the exceptions carved out in proviso to Section 12(1) are made out.

S.78 Information Technology Act Mandates Probe, Not Registration Of FIR By Officer Not Below Rank Of Police Inspector: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Neha Rafiq Chahchadi And State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102165 OF 2019

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 268

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that as per Section 78 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 an officer below the rank of Police Inspector can register FIR for offence punishable under Section 66E of the Act, but the investigation is to be conducted by a person who is not below the rank of an Inspector of Police.

A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda sitting at Dharwad bench dismissed a petition filed by one Neha Rafiq Chachad questioning the registration of FIR against her for allegedly opening a fake Instagram account in the name of the complainant and posting obscene and obnoxious posts.

Minute Procedural Aberration In Magistrate's Order Rejecting 'B' Report And Taking Cognizance Doesn't Prejudice Accused: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: H N Nagarajegowda & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2746 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 269

The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by eight murder accused challenging Magistrate court's order taking cognizance of the offence alleged against them and rejecting the ‘B Report’ filed by the police.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna rejected the petitioners contention regarding procedural defects in the cognizance order as the sworn statement was recorded even before the rejection of the 'B' report.

Right To Associate Constitutionally Guaranteed, People Gathering To Pay Homage To Deceased Innocents Long Standing Tradition: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Sri. Veeranjaneya Dharma Jagruthi Balaga & Other And State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WP 15400 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 270

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday permitted an unincorporated organisation of persons to organise a gathering and pay homage to one Venugoapal, a social worker and Hindu activist, who was killed by miscreants during Hanuman Jayanti celebrations.

A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit observed, “The Right to associate and association are constitutionally guaranteed. People gathering for paying homage on the death of innocents has been a long tradition in the society, the only requirement is that they have to ensure that no untoward incident would happen and that all precautions in that regard would be taken.”

Adoption Deed Not Must If Conditions Of Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act Properly Complied: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: N L Manjunatha & ANR AND B L Ananda

Case NO: REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO. 443 OF 2009

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 271

The Karnataka High Court has said that an adoption deed or registered document is not a must to prove the adoption of a child. If conditions of valid adoptions as required under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 are established, it is sufficient to prove the adoption.

A Single judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar dismissed an appeal filed by one N.L. Manjunatha who had challenged the order of the trial court and the first appellate court decreeing the suit for partition of ancestral property, in favour of the B.L. Ananda (respondent herein), who is the brother of the appellant.

Decide Issue Of Jurisdiction First: Karnataka HC Sets Aside Trial Court Order Restraining French Resident From Making Statement Against Ex-Employer

Case Title: Arnaud Descamps And Onmobile Global Limited

Case No: M.F.A. NO.4019/2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 272

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the trial court restraining a former employee of a company from making any statement, remarks and/or imputations against the company and its management in any social media, public forum and before any other entities.

A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh allowed the appeal filed by Arnaud Descamps, a resident of France, and set aside the order passed on the application made by Onmobile Global Limited. It remitted back the matter to the Trial Court to consider the issue of 'jurisdiction' in passing the restraint order. It observed, “Trial Court has not discussed with regard to the issue of jurisdiction whether the Court has got jurisdiction to entertain the suit and what are all the materials placed before the Court to invoke the jurisdiction of the Trial Court, while granting the relief but, the Trial Court failed to take note of the said fact into consideration.”

No Bar On Considering Evidence Of Official Witnesses If It's Free From Suspicion: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: D B Ramesh @ Doni Ramesh And State by Excise Police

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 779 OF 2020

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 273

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that there is no bar that evidence of official witnesses is to be discarded, and if the evidence is beyond all suspicious reasons, there is no reason for ignoring the evidence.

A single judge of Justice Rajendra Badamikar dismissed the appeal filed by accused D B Ramesh and upheld the order of the trial and revision court convicting him for offences under section 32(1) of the Karnataka Excise Act and Section 273 of the Indian Penal Code.

No Stringent Distinction Based On Nature Of Ailment In Guidelines For Alternative Objective Exam For Differently Abled Students: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Karnataka State Law University And Krishna

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 722 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 274

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the Karnataka State Law University challenging a single bench order directing it to conduct III Semester exam for a differently abled Law student, by providing objective type of questions instead of descriptive type of questions.

Krishna, having 46% overall impairment affecting both brain and eyes, is pursuing his five years integrated law degree at Vaikunta Baliga Law College. Since he was unable to write by hand as such for the I Semester exam he utilized the facility of scribe. He was however informed by the college that unless permission was granted by the University, it cannot permit him to take the help of a scribe for examinations in future.