Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: August 12 - August 18, 2024
Mustafa Plumber
19 Aug 2024 12:19 PM GMT
Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 365 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 372
Nominal Index:
Stanly Kirthiraj AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 365
Kawal Jeet Kaur AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 366
Kumara C AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 367
Alok Kumar v. Mamatha Singh. 2024 Live Law (Kar) 368
Shankar Naik G K AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 369
Shanthalakshmi AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 370
GUDDAPPA NINGAPPA KOLAJI AND THE MANAGEMENT OF GRASIM INDUSTRIES. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 371
M/S Three 1st Enterprises Versus The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 372
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: Stanly Kirthiraj AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6269 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 365
The Karnataka High Court has held that an application under Section 311 Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) cannot be allowed in cases where such applications are filed only to drag the proceedings/trial.
A single-judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by one Stanly Kirthiraj challenging the order of the trial court rejecting his application seeking to recall the witnesses six years after their evidence was recorded.
Case Title: Kawal Jeet Kaur AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200895 OF 2024
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 366
The Karnataka High Court has clarified that the trial court has the power to release the vehicle from interim custody, under Section 451, 457 of the Criminal Procedure Code, till disposal of the main case registered under provisions of the Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropics Substances Act (NDPS).
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan held thus while allowing a petition filed by Kawal Jeet Kaur the RC holder of a vehicle which was seized by the Excise Range Office after arresting its drivers who were found in possession of contraband.
Case Title: Kumara C AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.13157 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 367
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an accused who sought to quash the prosecution initiated against him after a woman with whom he was in a relationship, committed suicide by hanging herself after he refused to marry her.
A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan dismissed the petition filed by Kumar C who is charged under section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. It said “Once a statement were given in respect of the love affairs, death note and CDR prior to the suicide were all a presumption available to the prosecution and the accused is required to face the trial and rebut the evidence of the prosecution witnesses in the Court of law. Therefore, the accused is required to take the trial.”
Case Title: Alok Kumar v. Mamatha Singh
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.28964 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 Live Law (Kar) 368
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case initiated against Additional Director General of Police (ADGP) Alok Kumar, accused of causing hurt and criminal intimidation to a woman in 2019, when he was the incharge police commissioner of Bengaluru.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed the proceedings which were initiated under sections 34, 120A, 166A, 323, 325, 351 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, on a private complaint filed by Mamatha Singh.
It said, “The complainant need not/should not have waited for three long years i.e., 36 months, to register a complaint, that she had been bruised and intimated by the petitioner three years ago. A perusal at the complaint, would clearly indicate not even a speck of explanation is rendered for the delay of three years in registering the complaint. Therefore, permitting even the complaint to be alive would become contrary to law, as it is shrouded with complete improbability. Delay in such cases defeats acts of setting the criminal law in motion.
Case Title: Shankar Naik G K AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.26231 OF 2023
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 369
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash a complaint lodged under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, against a police inspector who did not deposit with the state treasury the seized money which was received while investigating a cheating case.
A Single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Shankar Naik G K and said “In the light of seriously disputed maze of facts which prima facie depict a crime thriller, it would amaze this Court for entertaining the subject petition, as it does require investigation in the least.
Case Title: Shanthalakshmi AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.40204/2012 [S-REG] C/W WRIT PETITION NO.54553/2014
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 370
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed an endorsement issued by the Horticulture and Sericulture department and declared that the petitioners who have been working as daily wage workers for over 10 years without a sanctioned post are entitled to regularisation of service.
A single judge bench of Justice B M Shyam Prasad allowed the petition filed by Shanthalakshmi and others and said “The petitions are allowed quashing the impugned Endorsements dated 14.06.2010 and 15.06.2012, and declared that the petitioners are entitled for regularisation in terms of 2002/2005 Schemes. Respondents in these petitions are directed to issue appropriate Orders in view of this Court's declaration within a period of three [3] months.”
Case Title: GUDDAPPA NINGAPPA KOLAJI AND THE MANAGEMENT OF GRASIM INDUSTRIES
Case No. : W.P. No. 146666 of 2020
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 371
A single judge bench of the Karnataka High Court, comprising Justice M.G.S. Kamal, while deciding writ petition emphasized that an employee cannot seek a change in the recorded date of birth after a considerable lapse of time.
Case Title: M/S Three 1st Enterprises Versus The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes
Case No.: Writ Petition No. 102550 Of 2017
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 372
The Dharwad Bench of the Karnataka High Court has held that the appeal against endorsement seeking production of account books lies before the joint commissioner of appeals.
The bench of Justice Jyoti Mulimani has observed that there is an alternative efficacious statutory remedy under Section 62 of the KVAT Act, 2003.
