Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 20 To 26, 2023

Citations: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 437 To 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 449

Nominal Index:

Zameer Ahmed Khan AND The State of Karnataka By Lokayukta P.S. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 437

Ashok D Sanadi And The Chief Secretary & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 438

Sayyad Murtuza Sayyad Kasim Haji AND State of Karnataka & Other. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 439

XXX AND Union of India & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 440

Kalavathi And Director General and Inspector General of Police & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 441

Chikkaredappa And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 442

Palaksha S S AND The State By Vidhana Souda Police Station and Another. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 443

Balaji & Others And State of Karnataka & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 444

R Pramod v Gangadharaiah. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 445

Vijaya Ganapati And M/s Intuit Technology Services Private Ltd. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 446

Pandurangabhat & Others And State By Malebennur Police And Another. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 447

Sai Lakshmi And Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths & Others. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 448

Mahalakshmamma And The Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayatraj. 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 449

Judgments/Orders

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Proceedings Against Congress MLA Zameer Ahmed Khan In Disproportionate Assets Case

Case Title: Zameer Ahmed Khan AND The State of Karnataka By Lokayukta P.S

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.9821 OF 2022

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 437

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by Congress party legislator Zameer Ahmed Khan, seeking to quash proceedings initiated against him under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, for allegedly possessing assets disproportionate to his known source of income.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “A perusal at the source information report or the communication under Section 66(2) of the Enforcement Directorate would prima facie bring the petitioner under the ambit of Section 13(1)(b) of the Act.”

High Court Upholds Appointment Of K. Naggana Gowda As Chairperson Of State Commission For Protection Of Child Rights

Case Title: Ashok D Sanadi And The Chief Secretary & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.25010 OF 2022

Citation NO: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 438

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the decision of the State government in appointing K. Naggana Gowda as the Chairperson of the Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights.

Dismissing the petition filed by Ashok S. Sanadi, who was not selected for the post, a Single Judge Bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “This Court cannot step into the shoes of the Selection Committee or assume an appellate role, over the selection made.”

[Alienation Of Waqf Property Without Sanction] Trial Court Can't Take Cognizance U/S 52A Waqf Act Based On Police Report: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Sayyad Murtuza Sayyad Kasim Haji AND State of Karnataka & Other

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100697 OF 2023

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 439

The Karnataka High Court has made it clear that under Section 52-A (3) of the Waqf Act, the trial court can take cognizance only of the complaints made by the Board or any officer duly authorised by the State Government, it cannot take cognizance of offence based on a police report.

A single judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar said “As per Section 52-A (3) of the Waqf Act, the Court can take cognizance only on complaint made by the Board or any officer duly authorised by the State Government in this behalf.”

Karnataka High Court Allows Thirteen Intending Couples To Undergo Surrogacy Using Donor Gametes Despite New Amendment Disallowing It

Case Title: XXX AND Union of India & Others

Case No: Writ Petition No. 15824 of 2023 etc

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 440

The Karnataka High Court has allowed a batch of petitions and permitted thirteen couples to opt for surrogacy using donor gametes (a person who provides sperm or oocyte). The bench said the new amendment to the Surrogacy Rules which prohibits the use of donor eggs for gestational surrogacy of an intending couple can be diluted on a case to case basis.

Justice M Nagaprasanna however refrained from examining the validity of the amendment, stating that the issue is pending before the Supreme Court.

The petitioners had challenged the amendment dated 14.03.2023 made to Form 2 under Rule 7 of the Surrogacy Rules, which is the form for Consent of the Surrogate Mother and Agreement for Surrogacy.

The amendment substituted paragraph 1(d) in Form 2 to ensure that a couple undergoing surrogacy cannot have donor gametes and both the male and female gamete must come from the intending couple.

Deputy Commissioners Can't Grant License For Storing More Than 600Kgs Firecrackers: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Kalavathi And Director General and Inspector General of Police & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 24195 OF 2023

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 441

The Karnataka High Court has directed that Deputy Commissioners henceforth shall not grant licences beyond 600 kgs of storage and selling of fireworks/crackers/sparklers, failing which they would be held accountable for any mishap.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna issued directions in regards to grant of license by authority, storing of fire crackers and safety measures to be adopted by the vendors.

Karnataka High Court Quashes Rape Case Subject To Accused Marrying Victim, Notes They Were In Consensual Relationship

Case Title: Chikkaredappa And State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7066 OF 2023

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 442

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a rape case against an accused subject to him solemnizing marriage with the survivor, who claimed they were in a consensual relationship while she was a minor and now having attained majority, intend to marry each other.

A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Chikkaredappa and directed him to marry the survivor within one month, and register the same before the competent authority. It also quashed the proceedings registered against him under sections 376(2)(n) of IPC and Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Case Against Advocate For Failure To Disclose Criminal Cases When Applying For District Judge Post

Case Title: Palaksha S S AND The State By Vidhana Souda Police Station and Another.

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.1644 OF 2022

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 443

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a cheating case against an advocate who allegedly suppressed information of previous criminal cases registered by and against him, while submitting his application for selection to the post of District Judge to the High Court.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Palaksha S S and observed “prima facie, the petitioner is guilty of suppressing the fact of him involving in nine cases albeit their closure, just prior to the notification issued by the 2nd respondent.”

Karnataka High Court Dismisses ‘Half-Baked’ PIL To Revoke License Of Bar Allegedly In Close Proximity To ‘Idgah’

Case Title: Balaji & Others And State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WP 25270 of 2023

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 444

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday dismissed a Public Interest Litigation seeking to quash the license issued to a Bar and Restaurant which was allegedly within 100 meters distance of an ‘Idgah,’a place for Muslim worship, in Hussainpura Village in Tumkur district.

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit dismissed the petition filed by residents of the said village. It said “considering all the factual aspects of nature which emerged from the perusal of material on record that is petition and annexures. We are of the clear opinion that petitioners are approaching this court only on their assumptions and presumptions and in a haphazard manner. This court cannot entertain such half-baked petitions under the guise of public interest litigation. As such PIl is dismissed at threshold.”

[Cheque Dishonour] Accused Must Take 'Probable Defence' To Rebut Adverse Presumption U/S 139 NI Act: Karnataka High Court Reiterates

Case Title: R Pramod v Gangadharaiah

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2000 OF 2022

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 445

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that to rebut the presumption under Section 139 Negotiable Instruments Act that cheque has been issued in discharge of a debt or liability, the accused must raise 'probable defence'.

Faced with accused's mere denial regarding the existence of debt, Justice S Rachaiah remarked, “If the defence taken by the accused is not acceptable obviously the presumption prevails upon the failure of the defence.”

Article 261 Of Constitution Confers Conclusiveness On Judicial Records, Can't Be Disregarded Sans Special Circumstances: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Vijaya Ganapati And M/s Intuit Technology Services Private Ltd

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 501 OF 2022 (L-TER) & WRIT APPEAL NO. 1151 OF 2022

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 446

The Karnataka High Court has recently observed that the ‘full faith and credit clause’ under Article 261 of the Constitution of India, was introduced to provide legitimacy and conclusiveness regarding the records of judicial proceedings.

A division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit made the observation while rejecting an appeal filed by one Vijaya Ganapthi, a former employee of M/s Intuit Technology Services Private Ltd against a single bench order which had rejected a plea challenging their termination and subsequent proceedings on the same before the labour court.

'Deity Doesn't Belong To Only A Few': Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Case Over Denial Of Temple Entry Based On Family's Caste

Case Title: Pandurangabhat & Others And State By Malebennur Police And Another

Case No: Criminal Petition No. 1723 of 2023.

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 447

The Karnataka High Court has observed that the deity in a temple cannot be imagined to be belonging to only a few.

In refusing to quash criminal proceedings against eight persons accused of stopping a family from entering a place of worship and physically as well as verbally abusing the complainant, her husband and her child, a single bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held, Worshipping of the deity, by entering into the temple, is to be given to one and all. Any kind of bigotry or discrimination is unacceptable. Although temples are seen to be symbols of unity and inclusivity, denial of rights of temple entry and worship, to persons belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, still looms large.”

Karnataka High Court Suggests State To Conduct "e-KYC" Before Issuing Death Certificates

Case Title: Sai Lakshmi And Chief Registrar of Births and Deaths & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 6605 OF 2023

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 448

The Karnataka High Court has directed Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and Secretary of e-governance to come up with a system of verifying the identification of the person who is dead on the basis of e-KYC like usage of Aadhar etc, so that no error occurs in the details which are entered firstly by the hospital and secondly while issuing the death certificate.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, “Whenever a death occurs in a hospital the entries made by the hospital are taken to be sacrosanct and the death certificate issued. I am of the considered opinion that the said process can give rise to several anomalies and can be misused.”

Family Pension Not Payable To Second-Wife When First Marriage Subsists: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Mahalakshmamma And The Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayatraj.

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 256 OF 2023

Citation No: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 449

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the second wife of a deceased State employee, seeking family pension upon the death of her husband.

In dismissing her appeal upon noting that the deceased employee's first marriage was still subsisting when he married her, a division bench of Chief Justice Prasanna B Varale and Justice Krishna S Dixit said, “Family Pension is payable to the “wife”, and not to those whose marriage is ‘no marriage’ in the eye of law, the limited status of legitimacy of children begotten therefrom, by virtue of Sec.16 1955 Act, notwithstanding.”