Nominal IndexABC & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 225Mali Rizwan And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 226Gururaj Havanur And The Management of Syndicate Bank & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 227Sindhu Boregowda And Yashwanth Bhaskar B P. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 228Vijesh Pillai And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 229The City...
Nominal Index
ABC & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 225
Mali Rizwan And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 226
Gururaj Havanur And The Management of Syndicate Bank & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 227
Sindhu Boregowda And Yashwanth Bhaskar B P. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 228
Vijesh Pillai And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 229
The City Municipal Council And Akbar Patel. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 230
Ramesh Naik. L v. State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 231
Prajith R And XXX & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 232
V V Singara Velu & ANR And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 233
Lingasugur Taluk Halumata Abhivrudhi Samiti ( R ) & Others And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 234
Subramani And State of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 235
B S Kumar Swamy Versus State Of Karnataka. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 236
Judgments/Orders
Non-Consummation Of Marriage Not Cruelty Under Section 498A IPC: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: ABC & Others And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7067 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 225
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal complaint filed by a wife against her husband under section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, alleging that he did not have physical relations after marriage on account of watching spiritual videos and thus it amounted to cruelty.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by the husband and his parents and quashed the proceedings registered against them by the wife 28 days after marriage. It said,“Neither the complaint nor the summary charge sheet narrates any factum/incident that would become an ingredient of Section 498A of the IPC. The only allegation is that he is a follower of Brahmakumari, always was watching videos of one sister Shivani, a Brahmakumari; gets inspired by watching those videos, always told that love is never getting physical, it should be soul to soul. On this score, he never intended to have a physical relationship with his wife. This would undoubtedly amount to cruelty due to non-consummation of marriage under Section 12(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act and not cruelty as is defined under Section 498A of the IPC.
Case Title: Mali Rizwan And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 9709 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 226
The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that consideration of objective material and subjective satisfaction of the competent authority is necessary before passing an order of externment.
A single judge bench of Justice T G Shivashankare Gowda partly allowed the petition filed by one Mali Rizwan and quashed the order of Sub-divisional Magistrate, externing him from the limits of Kundapura to Sagara Sub-Division for 3 months. It said, “The objective material relied on is only the police report for subjective satisfaction. Non-compliance of Section 56 of the K.P. Act (Karnataka Police Act) is imminent. The impugned order lacks subjective satisfaction and test of reasonableness.”
Case Title: Gururaj Havanur And The Management of Syndicate Bank & ANR
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 109981 OF 2015
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 227
The Karnataka High Court has upheld the dismissal order passed by the Management of Syndicate Bank against a former Manager accused of misconduct. A single judge bench Justice S Vishwajith Shetty sitting at Dharwad said, “While considering the question of proportionality of sentence imposed on a delinquent, the Court should also take into consideration the nature of duty performed by him and other relevant circumstances which go into the decision making process...If the delinquent was holding a responsible post and if he has breached the trust and acted with dishonesty he is required to be dealt with iron hands. If honesty and integrity are in built requirements for the post held by him, no lenient view can be taken against him.”
Case Title: Sindhu Boregowda And Yashwanth Bhaskar B P
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.24827 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 228
The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by Family Court allowing application made by the wife to cross-examine her husband subject to a condition that she would bear his travel expense of Rs 1.65 lakhs, from the USA to Bangalore.
A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed the petition filed by Sindhu Boregowda and said “Putting a condition of the kind would virtually amount to foreclosing petitioner’s right to cross examine/further cross-examine the respondent that too in a serious matter in which her marriage is at stake. Courts of justice cannot stipulate a condition to a party which he or she will not be in a position to comply with.”
Case Title: Vijesh Pillai And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case N0: WRIT PETITION No.11186 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 229
The Karnataka High Court has issued guidelines for Judicial Magistrates to be followed strictly while issuing orders granting permission to the police to investigate non-cognizable cases on requisition made to it either by the police or the complainant.
The court has issued a warning to the Magistrate courts that any deviation from what is directed will be construed that the Magistrates are contributing to the huge pendency of cases by their callous action of passing inappropriate orders and would be viewed seriously.
Case Title: The City Municipal Council And Akbar Patel
Case NO: WRIT PETITION NO. 87922 OF 2012
Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 230
The Karnataka High Court has held that under Section 94(1-A)(i) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, an Educational Institution is exempted from payment of property taxes and the institute is not required to obtain an exemption certificate, every year. It said the exemption applies to all the buildings which are used for the purpose of running educational institutions and/or incidental activity.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj sitting at Kalaburagi bench dismissed the petition filed by erstwhile City Municipal Council, Bijapur, challenging an order of the appellate court which held that the respondent who is an educational institution is exempted from payment of property taxes.
Case Title: Ramesh Naik. L v. State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 18915/2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 231
The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday permitted the petitioner Advocate Ramesh Naik L to withdraw the public interest litigation filed by him seeking measures to minimise the weight of school bags carried by students of primary education.
A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice M G S Kamal said “The party in person submits that as the petition was filed in a little hurry the necessary information could not be collected and as such seeks prayer to withdrawal the petition with a liberty to file a fresh PIL with all requisite necessary information. Allowed to withdraw, with liberty as prayed for.
Case Title: Prajith R And XXX & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.544 OF 2021
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 232
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the FIR lodged against a man by a married woman, complaining that she was cheated by the man as he failed to keep his promise of marriage to her.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the man's quashing plea and said, “Cheating is alleged on the ground that the petitioner has breached the promise of marriage. The complainant admits that she is already married and has a child from the wedlock. If she is already married, there can be no question of cheating on the breach of promise of marriage. Therefore, the said offence also cannot be laid against the petitioner.”
Case Title: V V Singara Velu & ANR And State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.3095 OF 2022
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 233
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the prosecution initiated against a couple under section 306 IPC, alleged to have abetted the suicide of their nephew by threatening him over a property dispute.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held, “Proximate to the death must be a dynamic act, be it direct or indirect. It should be proximate to the occurrence of death and it should be instigation of the kind that it drives a person to commit suicide.”
Case Title: Lingasugur Taluk Halumata Abhivrudhi Samiti ( R ) & Others And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 201552 OF 2023
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 234
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a society and its governing body members registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, challenging an order of the Registrar directing enquiry under Section 25 of the Act, on the complaint made by a third party alleging violations regarding the proper running of the society.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj sitting at Kalaburagi dismissed the petition filed by Lingasugur Taluk Halumata Abhivrudhi Samiti (R) and its members who had challenged the notices issued by the Enquiry officer to them.
Case Title: Subramani And State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2097 OF 2018
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 235
The Karnataka High Court has held that the trial court has the power to find an accused guilty for the lesser offence even though the charges were framed for major offences. But when the charges are framed for lesser offence, the Court cannot convict and sentence for the major offence punishable with imprisonment more than the offence which were charged, without altering the charges as per Section 216 of CrPC.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan set aside the conviction handed down by the trial court under Section 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, to accused Subramani.
Case Title: B S Kumar Swamy Versus State Of Karnataka
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 2130 Of 2022 (T-Res)
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 236
The Karnataka High Court has issued directions determining the tax difference calculation for pre-GST works contracts.
The bench of Justice S. Sunil Dutt Yadav observed that the "tax difference" should be calculated on balance works executed or to be executed after July 1, 2017, separately. The petitioners sought the declaration that the provisions of the GST Act are inapplicable in respect of works contracts where provisions of service are made prior to 01.07.2017.