Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 6 To August 13

Nominal Index:

Rasik Lal Patel & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 297

M/s Legal Property & ANR And Chief Manager, State Bank of India & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 298

ABC And XYZ. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 299

The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd And Ramu @ Ramesh S/O Yallappa & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 300

Nanjamma & Others AND Rajamma & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 301

ABC And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 302

Sanjay P S And Abhishek M. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 303

Smt. Renuka & Ors. v Sri Venkatesh. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 304

State By PI MESCON v B Usman Beary. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 305

Judgements/Orders

Karnataka High Court Criticizes Misuse Of SC/ST Prevention Of Atrocities Act, Quashes Criminal Case Over Property Dispute

Case Title: Rasik Lal Patel & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: Criminal Petition no.5497 of 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 297

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the prosecution initiated against two persons under provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, registered by the complainant immediately after the police filed a chargesheet against him on the complaint made by the petitioners, for house trespass and continuous harassment.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing the petition filed by Rasik Lal Patel and another said, “This case would form a classic illustration of misuse of the provisions of the Act and the penal provisions under the IPC. It is such cases which clog the criminal justice system and consume considerable time of the Courts, be it the Magistrates Court, Court of Session or this Court, while genuine cases where litigants have actually suffered would be waiting in the pipeline.”

SBI Is State Instrumentality, Writ Petition Maintainable Even In Disputes Pertaining To Contract For Loan Transaction: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s Legal Property & ANR And Chief Manager, State Bank of India & ANR

Case No: WP 11203/2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 298

The Karnataka High Court recently set aside an endorsement issued by the State Bank of India to a partnership firm, stopping the release of loan amount which was sanctioned and partly disbursed.

While the bank resisted the writ petition stating the loan transaction was in the nature of a 'private contract', a single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit observed, “The respondent-bank being an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution, even in matters like this, writ remedy can be granted to the aggrieved...A banker who answers description of State under Article 12 of the Constitution cannot act like a private lender; its actions have to be animated with reason & justice, which factors are militantly absent in the impugned endorsement/notice. Therefore the same is liable to be invalidated.”

Wife Insulted, Moved Away From Husband Because Of His 'Dark Complexion': Karnataka High Court Dissolves Marriage On Ground Of Cruelty

Case Title: ABC And XYZ

Case NO: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 8998 OF 2017

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 299

The Karnataka High Court has held that a wife insulting the husband on the premise that he is 'dark', moving away from his company for the same reason and levelling false allegations of illicit relationships as a cover up, would constitute cruelty.

A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Anant Ramanath Hegde thus allowed the appeal filed by the husband and set aside the family court order refusing divorce decree. It said, “The wife used to insult the husband on the premise that he is dark. And for the same reason has moved away from the company of the husband without any cause. And to cover up this aspect, has levelled false allegations of illicit relationships against the husband. These facts certainly will constitute cruelty.”

Karnataka High Court Directs Integration Of Police IT System With Road Accident Database, FSL, Insurance Depts

Case Title: The Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Ltd And Ramu @ Ramesh S/O Yallappa & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.201961 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 300

The Karnataka High Court reiterated that Motor Vehicles Act being a beneficial legislation, the provisions thereof have to be given beneficial meaning and effect.

It held that benefit under the Act cannot be taken away on a technical aspect that too of limitation under Section 166(3) of the Act, which mandates that no claim petition can be entertained unless it is made within six months of the occurrence of the accident.

Order 39 CPC | Suppression Of Material Facts Detrimental To Grant Of Temporary Injunction: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Nanjamma & Others AND Rajamma & Others

Case No: M.F.A No 2172/2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 301

The Karnataka High Court recently held that relief of temporary injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is a discretionary remedy which requires a careful balance between the need for interim relief and the ongoing legal proceedings.

Justice H.P Sandesh added that this discretion should not be exercised when material facts are suppressed before the Trial Court and that any false or misleading information in obtaining such interim relief can be detrimental to the integrity of the judicial process.

Class 1 Admissions: Karnataka High Court Refuses To Interfere With State's Policy Fixing '6 Years' As Eligibility Criteria

Case Title: ABC And State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 11173/2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 302

The Karnataka High Court has upheld State government's decision fixing the admission age for class-I students in Government schools, aided and unaided schools from the academic year 2025-2026 as 6 years.

A single judge bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum dismissed a petition filed on behalf of a 4 year old toddler, represented through her father, seeking to quash the notification/order dated 26.07.2022.

S.397 CrPC | Revision Petition Before Sessions Court Against Order Passed By Magistrate U/S 143A NI Act Maintainable: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Sanjay P S And Abhishek M

Case No: Criminal Petition No: 5944/2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 303

The Karnataka High Court has held that a revision petition preferred before the Sessions court under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging an order made by the Magistrate Court under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is maintainable.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “An order passed on an application filed under Section 143A of the Act, is not interlocutory order, but an intermediate order, as the application is filed, and the application is closed, under the said provision, determining the rights and liabilities of parties qua the application and revision petition before the Court of Sessions on the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 143A either allowing the application, or rejecting it, would be maintainable for the aggrieved party, be it the complainant or the accused to approach.”

[Maintenance] S.125 CrPC Doesn't Require Wife To Prove 'Sufficient Cause For Living Separately' From Husband: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Smt. Renuka & Ors. v Sri Venkatesh

Case No: RPFC No. 100033/2020

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 304

The Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench, has held that maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (“Cr.P.C”) do not require proof regarding sufficient cause for living separately.

“It is clear from a clean reading of Section 125 of Cr.P.C, that the proceedings are summary in nature and it is sufficient if negligence or refusal on the part of the husband in providing maintenance to the wife is demonstrated. The proceedings do not contemplate the proof regarding sufficient cause for living separately”, the Court held.

Electricity Act | Minimum Sentence Under S.135 Can't Be Less Than Three Times The Financial Gain: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: State By PI MESCON v B Usman Beary

Case No: Criminal Appeal 1128/2011

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 305

The Karnataka High Court has enhanced the fine imposed on a convict from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 1,08,189/- for theft of electricity, while observing that the minimum sentence under Section 135 of the Electricity Act, 2003 for the first conviction cannot be less than three times the financial gain.

The Bench comprising Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar thus allowed an appeal preferred by the State Government praying to enhance the fine amount imposed by the Special Court against an Accused for theft of electricity.