Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 18 To September 24, 2023

Nominal Index [Citations 358 - 365]:

Veerbhadra Gowda & ANR AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 358

Mohan Vasudev Chavan And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 359

Vivekananda Kemali And State of Karnataka & ANR. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 360

Chinnaswamy Gowda And Shivramu C M Shivaramu & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 361

D Roopa And Rohini Sindhuri. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 362

Pigeon Education Technology India Private Limited And Directorate of Enforcement & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 363

Girish Bharadwaj & Others And Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 364

Santosh & Others And State Through Ashok Nagar PS. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 365

Judgments/Orders

Land Earmarked For Village Cattle Can Be Diverted For Larger Public Purposes Like Waste Disposal Unit: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Veerbhadra Gowda & ANR AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 17835 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 358

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation questioning a Deputy Commissioner's order reserving 5 acres gomal land in Soraba Taluka, earmarked for village cattle, for establishment of Solid and Liquid Waste Disposal Unit.

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit observed, “It is not that the gomal land can never be diverted to other larger public purposes like the one put in challenge. There is absolutely no material on record to substantiate the argument that any provision of law is violated by diversion of the Government land for the purpose of waste management which in turn serves the interest of environment and ecology.”

Sites For Civic Amenities Like Parks, Healthcare Centres Crucial In Shaping Quality Of Urban Life, Cannot Be Sold: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Mohan Vasudev Chavan And State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 102318 OF 2016

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 359

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Deputy Commissioner (Belgavi) resolving to sell a plot reserved for civic amenities by invoking Section 72(2) of the Karnataka Municipalities Act.

The provision enables every municipal council to lease or sale or otherwise transfer any movable or immovable property owned by the local authority, so far as is not inconsistent with the provisions and purposes of the Act.

S.498A IPC | Karnataka High Court Quashes Wife's Criminal Complaint Against Husband For Refusing Money To Perform Pooja

Case Title: Vivekananda Kemali And State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101804 OF 2019

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 360

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a complaint registered against a man by his wife under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code after he refused to give money to her to buy necessities for the performance of a pooja.

The Court found that the wife's allegations in the complaint did not meet the essential ingredients required to invoke Section 498A (cruelty) against the husband. “The complaint is so vague as it would fetter vagueness itself. The investigation has led to filing of the charge sheet, without rhyme or reason, fortunately leaving out the parents, in the charge sheet. It is filed only against the husband and against the husband what is found is as afore-quoted. Therefore, the offence punishable under Section 498A is recklessly and loosely laid against the petitioner.”

[Suit For Specific Performance] Impleading Proper Party Enables Court To Adjudicate Lis Completely: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Chinnaswamy Gowda And Shivramu C M Shivaramu & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.1621 OF 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 361

The Karnataka High Court has said that impleading of proper parties as defendants in a suit filed for specific performance of contract, enables the Court to adjudicate the lis pending before it completely and it will have complete facts and evidence before it, to arrive at a just and proper conclusion

A single judge bench of Justice Vijaykumar A Patil dismissed the petition filed by one Chinnaswamy Gowda questioning a trial court order allowing an impleadment application under Order I Rule 10(2) CPC to bring 45 defendants on record in the suit filed by him. It observed, “In the instant case, the contesting respondents may not be necessary parties but proper parties to the suit. The presence of proposed defendants would enable the Court to adjudicate the lis pending before it completely and will have complete facts and evidence before it, to arrive at a just and proper conclusion with regard to grant of relief sought by the plaintiff.”

Doctrine Of State Humanity Doesn't Cover Acts Done By Public Servant For Her/His Own Benefit Or Pleasure: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: D Roopa And Rohini Sindhuri

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4575 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 362

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash the defamation complaint lodged against IPS officer D Roopa by IAS Officer Rohini Sindhuri for allegedly publishing defamatory content against her.

Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum rejected the argument made by Roopa that the allegations averred in the private complaint, the statements were made by her in her official capacity and therefore, in the absence of sanction, the Magistrate erred in entertaining the private complaint for the offence punishable under Section 499 of IPC.

Govt Authorities Can't Use Alternate Remedy Doctrine As A 'China Wall' Against Invocation Of Writ Jurisdiction: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Pigeon Education Technology India Private Limited And Directorate of Enforcement & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No 11532 of 2023.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 363

The Karnataka High Court has observed that the doctrine of alternate remedy cannot be used as a rigid barrier against invocation of its writ jurisdiction, especially by entities falling under Article 12 of the Constitution.

Justice Krishna S Dixit relied on the Supreme Court decision in Godrej Sara Lee Ltd vs. Excise & Taxation Officer to hold so. “In all cases, the entities answering Article 12 of the Constitution of India cannot press into service the doctrine of alternate remedy as the China Wall against the invocation of writ jurisdiction.”

Strangers To Criminal Trial Can't Seek Fresh Probe Citing Social Unrest Upon Acquittal Of Accused: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Girish Bharadwaj & Others And Union of India & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 19366 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 364

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a PIL seeking a fresh investigation by either the CBI or Special Investigation Team (SIT) in the 2012 case of rape and murder of a 17-year-old student.

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the plea while stating that persons unrelated to the criminal case could not seek a fresh investigation upon acquittal or conviction of the accused.“The acquittal order is not put in challenge in this PIL and rightly so. The same can be put in challenge in an appeal. As long as that order stands, in our opinion a de novo investigation cannot be ordered for an askance by persons who were neither victims, complainants, witnesses or in any way associated with the criminal case in question.”

S.407 CrPC | Reasonable Apprehension Of Injustice Necessary To Transfer Criminal Cases : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Santosh & Others And State Through Ashok Nagar PS

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 200338 OF 2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 365

The Karnataka High Court has held that criminal cases cannot be transferred between courts within the State under Section 407 based on mere allegations made by the accused that there is apprehension of injustice.

Justice Venkatesh Naik T ruled that there must be a reasonable apprehension of injustice for a transfer to be successful. "any party can seek the transfer of case within the State under Section 407 of Cr.P.C. The apprehension of not getting a fair and impartial trial is required to be reasonable and not imaginary based upon conjunctures and surmises. The cases cannot be transferred on mere allegations that, there is apprehension that justice will not be done. For transfer of criminal case, there must be a reasonable apprehension on the part of the party to a case that justice will not be done."