1: Breaching Promise To Marry Will Not Amount To Offence Of Cheating Under IPC : Karnataka High Court Case Title: Venkatesh And State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No 5865/2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 25 The Karnataka High Court while quashing the FIR registered against a man and his family has reiterated that not abiding with the promise of marriage will not amount to...
1: Breaching Promise To Marry Will Not Amount To Offence Of Cheating Under IPC : Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Venkatesh And State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No 5865/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 25
The Karnataka High Court while quashing the FIR registered against a man and his family has reiterated that not abiding with the promise of marriage will not amount to the offence of cheating under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. A single-judge bench of Justice K Natarajan while allowing the petition filed by Venkatesh and others said "Absolutely there is no ingredient stated by her in order to show that there is a criminal intention of cheating by petitioner No.1 and thereby, he has promised to marry her but has broken his promise."
Case Title: Amrusha Das v. State Of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.19057 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 26
The Karnataka High Court has said that estrangement between a couple should not affect their child's education prospects. Justice Krishna S Dixit thus allowed the petition filed by a mother and her 8-year old daughter, seeking directions to a school in Bengaluru to issue her Transfer certificate.
Case Title: Virendra Khanna v. State of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.1983 of 2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 27
The Karnataka High Court has said that further investigation conducted under Section 173(8) of CrPC must always relate to the incident of alleged crime in respect of which the charge sheet has been filed already. It is not reinvestigation. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar while quashing two cases registered under the NDPS Act, against party organiser Virendra Khanna said, "Further investigation is always in accordance with Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C,with a view to collecting further evidence supplemental to the evidence already on record. It is not reinvestigation."
Case Title: Gaurav Raj Jain V. State Of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition (HC) No.109/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 28
Observing that "Litigants and members of the Bar appear to have not understood the importance and seriousness of this extraordinary writ of Habeas Corpus," the Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a father seeking directions to produce his 2 year old girl before the court, who is in safe custody of her mother. A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice M G Uma while dismissing the petition filed by Gaurav Raj Jain, imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on him, stating that no ground to allow the writ petition is made out and (petitioner) has abused the judicial process. The amount is payable within a month to the Police Welfare Fund.
5: Motor Accident| Courts Can Award Compensation Higher Than What Is Claimed: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Basavaraj v. Umesh Case No: M.F.A. No.103473/2017
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 29
Coming to the aid of a 14-year old (at the time) who suffered permanent disability to his pelvic region in an accident, the Karnataka High Court recently modified the order of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, awarding compensation of Rs 50,000 under the head loss of amenities and enjoyment in life and increased it to Rs 10 lakhs.
A division bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said, "Since the marriage prospect of the claimant is wiped out, the claimant is deprived of all the pleasure and benefits of married life. The mental trauma of having to remain single, and answering the curious questions posed by the people around throughout life, for not getting married, are some of the things not easy to cope with. The trauma is going to be perennial and unabated."
Case Title: Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) v. Shekar B S Case No: WA 12/2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 30
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal filed by Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) challenging an order of the Single judge by which it was directed to grant benefit of reduction of interest rate on Home loan to a customer from the date of issuance of the circular for reduction, instead of when the customer applied for seeking reduction. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj was informed by the bank that the circular dated June 30, 2010 was pasted on the notice board of the bank and as such there was due communication to the customers of the bank.
Case Title: Ramesh v. State Through Dy RFO Case No: Criminal Petition No.9975/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 31
The Karnataka High Court has said that once an accused has appeared before the court, either personally or through his counsel, he cannot seek anticipatory bail by invoking section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). Justice H P Sandesh thus dismissed the anticipatory bail petition filed by one Ramesh and granted him liberty to approach the Trial Court by filing the necessary application for recalling the warrant issued against him.
8: Being Govt Employee Not A Ground For Grant Of Bail In Rape Case: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Srinivas Murthy H.N. And State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.9831/2021
Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 32
The Karnataka High court has said that being a government employee is no ground to grant bail to an accused alleged of committing rape. Justice H P Sandesh while dismissing the petition filed by one Srinivas Murthy H.N. said "The fact that petitioner is a Government employee is not a ground to enlarge him on bail, when the serious offence of rape is alleged against the petitioner."
Case Title: Mrs Kiran Iccha Kaur Bhasin And Director-General Case No: WPHC 123/2021
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 33
The Karnataka High Court has held that grounds on which subjective satisfaction is based while passing a detention order by the authority under the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act (COFEPOSA), cannot be challenged in a court of law, except on the grounds of malafides. A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M G S Kamal while dismissing a petition filed by the daughter of a detenu Gurmeet Singh Kohli said, "It is well settled in law that the reasonableness of satisfaction of detaining authority cannot be questioned in a court of law, for the reason that satisfaction of detaining authority to which Section 3(1)(a) of the Act refers to be subjective satisfaction of the Authority."
Other reports:
Former Prime Minister H D Deve Gowda has appealed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to drop the proposed Amendment to Section 5 of the Notaries Act, 1952, which seeks to restrict the term of a Notary is to 5 years and further imposes a limitation on the number of terms a Notary's certificate of practice can be renewed. The proposed amendments would mean that the maximum term of a Notary will be 15 years. The existing law does not impose any limit on the number of times the extension of appointment can be sought by a notary.
Case Title: Peoples Movement Against Sexual Assault (PMASA) v. State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 6301/2017
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday directed the State Government to ensure the release of Rs. 7 crore to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority at the earliest. The amount is to be disbursed to victims under the Victim Compensation Scheme. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj noted in its order, "It is informed that Rs. 13 crore has been released to KSLSA and the requisition for remaining Rs. 7 crore has not been received. As soon as the requisition is received the remaining amount will be released as arrangements are made and orders for release have been passed."
Case Title: Vijayan Menon v. Secretary Urban Development Department Case No: WP 42927/2015
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday took strong exception to the oral claim made by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) that it has filled up all the potholes across the city. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj orally observed, "We personally feel that you have not done anything...Don't say anything which we ourselves feel is wrong."