Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 305 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 315Nominal Index:R Shankar AND E Ramamohan Chowdary. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 305Roopesha & ANR AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 306UNION OF INDIA & Others AND L. KRISHNAMURTHY & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 307Hu Xiaolin AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 308P B D'Sa & Others AND State of...
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 305 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 315
Nominal Index:
R Shankar AND E Ramamohan Chowdary. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 305
Roopesha & ANR AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 306
UNION OF INDIA & Others AND L. KRISHNAMURTHY & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 307
Hu Xiaolin AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 308
P B D'Sa & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 309
Mohammed Khaleelulla AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 310
Shreekrishan Ramesh @Sreeki AND State of Karnataka & Other. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 311
Vanitha & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR . 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 312
C Niranjan Yadav AND D Ravi Kumar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 313
M K Thammaiah & Others AND A Mohan Kumar. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 314
Vaibhavaraj Utsav AND State By Chandra Layout P.S. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 315
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: R Shankar AND E Ramamohan Chowdary
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 100487 OF 2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 305
The Karnataka High Court has held that Order XIII Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which pertains to the return of documents produced during a trial, is not to be strictly limited to the party that physically submits the documents in court, instead, it is to ensure rightful ownership and fair administration of justice.
Case Title: Roopesha & ANR AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.4941 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 306
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash proceedings of abetment to suicide of a minor initiated against two school teachers. The girl student committed suicide following the alleged harassment and threats issued by them on the ground that she was talking to a boy studying in the same school.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while dismissing the petition filed by Roopesha and Sadananda said “Boys and girls are in the same classroom, if they talk to each other or become friends, it is ununderstandable as to how such acts could become subversive of discipline, as the entire projection by the petitioner is that they only wanted to discipline the children, particularly, the victim.”
Case Title: UNION OF INDIA & Others AND L. KRISHNAMURTHY & Others
Case No: WA 1556/2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 307
The Karnataka High Court on Monday dismissed an appeal filed by the Union of India challenging a single bench order permitting a former State Information Commissioner to avail medical treatment and Hospital facilities as provided in the Central Government Health Scheme.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind dismissed the appeal saying, “The appeal is dismissed.We have concurred with the view taken by the Ld Single judge.” The detailed order will be made available in due course.
Case Title: Hu Xiaolin AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.455 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 308
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a Chinese national accused in the infamous Power Bank Scam seeking permission to travel back to China pending trial on the grounds of meeting her ailing father.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by HU Xiaolin while doing so took note that under the Chinese Criminal Code once a person becomes an accused, he or she will never be permitted to move out of the Chinese shores till the trial gets completed.
After Former Judge Apologises, Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Defamation Case Against Him
Case Title: P B D'Sa & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5242 OF 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 309
The Karnataka High Court has quashed criminal defamation proceedings initiated against former High Court judge, Justice Michael Francis Saldhana, after he tendered an unconditional apology.
The proceedings were initiated under sections 384/385/389 (extortion), 500/501 (defamation) and 506 (criminal intimidation) IPC on a complaint filed by Advocate MP Noronha.
Case Title: Mohammed Khaleelulla AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 7545/2022
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 310
The Karnataka High Court today dismissed a PIL filed by a civil contractor, seeking action against several state BJP leaders including MP Renukacharya, CT Ravi, Tejasvi Surya and Prathap Simha for allegedly making Hate speeches.
Petitioner Mohammed Khaleeulla claimed he came across the alleged speeches through social media platforms.
However, division bench headed by Chief Justice NV Anjaria found the allegations were too general, lacking authentication and said the PIL appeared to be "politically motivated".
"Why are you misusing the platform of High Court by filing such petitions? Why are you wasting time of courts by filing such petitions with omnibus prayers?" the Judge sternly remarked while dismissing the plea.
Karnataka High Court Quashes KCOCA Charges Against Bitcoin Scam Accused Sirkrishna
Case Title: Shreekrishan Ramesh @Sreeki AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 15943 OF 2024 (GM-POLICE) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 15622 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 311
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the addition of stringent charges under the Karnataka Control of Organized Crimes Act, 2000 against accused Sirkrishna and Robin Khandelwal, in connection with the Bitcoin scam case.
A single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar said “The filing of two charge sheets and taking of cognizance of two offences within a period of 10 years prior to and preceding the date of commission of the offence under KCOCA is a sine qua non for invocation of the offence and in the absence of the same, the very invocation of KCOCA would be without jurisdiction or authority of law and deserves to be quashed.”
Case Title: Vanitha & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5522 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 312
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a case of cheating registered against a mother and son who are alleged of fabricating documents in order to acquire title in a property.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Vanitha and Venkatesh M and said, “It is no law that merely because an issue brought before the Court appears to be civil and is standing on the heels of crime, it should be obliterated.”
Case Title: C Niranjan Yadav AND D Ravi Kumar
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.814 OF 2021
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 313
The Karnataka High Court has held that a legal notice regarding dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if sent by registered post to the address of the accused which is known to the complainant, would be deemed to have been served and it is for the accused to say as to why he could not receive the cover.
A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda held thus while dismissing the petition filed by C Niranjan Yadav challenging an order by the trial court which had held him guilty under the Act and imposed a fine of Rs.75,000.
Case Title: M K Thammaiah & Others AND A Mohan Kumar
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5232 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 314
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a trial court order taking cognizance of a private complaint filed against seven police officers under provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Indian Penal Code, as no sanction for prosecution was granted by the government.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed ADGP Seemanthkumar Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DySP) MK Thammaiah, Inspector SR Veerendra Prasad, DySP Prakash R, Inspector Manjunath H Hugar, DySPs Vijay H and Uma Prashant, who were attached to the now-disbanded Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB).
Imposing Condition To Furnish Bank Guarantee While Granting Bail Illegal: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Vaibhavaraj Utsav AND State By Chandra Layout P.S
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 5847 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 315
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that imposing a condition that the accused should furnish a bank guarantee of any quantum for grant of bail by the trial court is on the face of it illegal.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna noted that it has come across a plethora of cases where the concerned courts while granting bail are imposing conditions of furnishing bank guarantee.
It said, “I deem it appropriate to observe that the concerned Court shall not insist on furnishing of bank guarantee for release of the accused on grant of bail. Except this, the concerned Court would be free to impose any other legally tenable conditions.”