Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: June 17 - June 23, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 265 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 276

Nominal Index:

Mrs X AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 265

Alla Baksha Patel AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 266

Invest Karnataka Forum & ANR and M/s BBP Studio Virtual Bharath Pvt. Ltd & Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 267

ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 268

Bhavani Revanna AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 269

Vijayalakshmi H S AND Principal Secretary & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 270

Lakkamma & Others AND Jayamma. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 271

Sagad Kareem Ismael AND Union of India & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 272

P Reethi Mune Gowda AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 273

Parvathamma M AND Chandrakala V. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 274

ABC & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 275

A M Harish Gowda AND Chaluvaraju H S. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 276

Judgments/Orders

Victim Of Prostitution Cannot Be Prosecuted U/S 5 Immoral Traffic Prevention Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Mrs X AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 807 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 265

The Karnataka High Court has held that a woman who is a victim of prostitution cannot be punished for offences punishable under Section 5 of the Immoral Traffic Prevention Act.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by a woman who had been charged under the provision and said, “The provisions, the purpose or the object of the Act is not to abolish prostitution or the prostitute. There is no provision under the law, which penalises a victim who indulges in prostitution. What is punishable is sexual exploitation for commercial purposes and to earn or make a living upon it against such person/s.”

Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR For Outraging Woman's Modesty By Writing Her Mobile Number On Toilet Wall

Case Title: Alla Baksha Patel AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1995 OF 2022

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 266

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against a man who allegedly wrote the number of a married woman on the walls of gents toilet at Majestic bus stand, Bangalore, calling her “a call girl” following which she started receiving unexpected calls at odd hours from various numbers who also threatened to her life.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Alla Baksha Patel and said “In today's digital age one need not cause physical harm, a woman's modesty can be railroaded by sheer circulation of pejorative statements, pictures or videos in the social media. It is therefore, when such cases are projected before this Court seeking quashment, it should not be interfered with, but be dealt with a stern manner. The petitioner has indulged in one of the ingredients of such insult by fresco or a writing on the wall. He, therefore, cannot get away with making such belittling comments on a woman in public.”

Court In Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Enter Arena Of Interpretation Of Contractual Terms: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Invest Karnataka Forum & ANR and M/s BBP Studio Virtual Bharath Pvt. Ltd & Anr

Case No: C.C.C NO.495 OF 2023 (CIVIL) C/W WRIT APPEAL NO.1095 OF 2023 (GM-RES) AND WRIT APPEAL NO.1266 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 267

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order passed by the Single judge bench by which it directed the State government to release balance payments due to M/s BBP Studio Virtual Bharat Pvt Ltd, which was appointed to produce a 3D film during the Global Investors Meet, in November 2022, but the contract was cancelled last minute as the film did not meet required parameters.

A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed the appeal filed by Invest Karnataka Forum and the State of Karnataka and said “It is difficult to agree with the view of the learned Single Judge.”

Consensual Relationship Is No Licence To Assault A Woman: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6913 OF 2022

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 268

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash charges of assault levelled by a woman against a man with whom she was in a consensual relationship for years.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “Any amount of consensus or a consensual relationship between the accused and the complainant will not become a licence to the accused to assault a woman.”

Kidnapping Case:Karnataka HC Grants Pre-Arrest Bail to Prajwal Revanna's Mother

Case Title: Bhavani Revanna AND State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Petition No 5125/2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 269

The Karnataka High Court today granted anticipatory bail to Bhavani Revanna, Prajwal Revanna's mother, who has been charged with kidnapping a woman.

A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit while pronouncing the order remarked, "I have marched a step forward in protecting a woman from unnecessary or avoidable custody. In our social setup they are hub of the family."

Teachers Mould Fate Of A Nation And Play Pivotal Role In Nation Building: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Vijayalakshmi H S AND Principal Secretary & Others

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 1429 OF 2016

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 270

The Karnataka High Court has allowed an appeal filed by a teacher and directed the State Higher Education Department to give effect to the Management's order of her absorption as a full-time lecturer in the institution.

A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramchandra D Huddar allowed the appeal filed by Vijayalakshmi H S and said “Absorption would secure favourable conditions of service to the teachers and that in turn would proliferate their interest in the discharge of their duties. It hardly needs to be stated that it is the teachers that mould the fate of a Nation and they play a pivotal role in Nation building.”

Court Must Consider Time Limit In Agreement In Suit For Specific Performance, Need Not Decide Suit Merely Because It Was Filed Within Limitation Period: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Lakkamma & Others AND Jayamma

Case No: REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2013

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 271

The Karnataka High Court has held that while exercising discretion in a suit for specific performance, the court need not decree the suit merely because it is filed within the period of limitation, by ignoring time limits stipulated in the agreement.

A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Ramchandra D Huddar allowed the appeal filed by the Lakkamma @Lakshmamma and others and set aside the trial court order dated 20th October 2012, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff Jayamma against the appellants for the relief of specific performance of the suit agreement dated 02.08.2007.

Foreign Nationals Cannot Execute Special Power Of Attorney For Filing Writ Petitions Before Indian Courts: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Sagad Kareem Ismael AND Union of India & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 11952 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 272

The Karnataka High Court recently held that a foreign national cannot execute a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) sitting elsewhere in the globe for the purpose of filing a writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India, before any courts in India.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Sagad Kareem Ismael a native of Iraq who had approached the court through SPA with a prayer directing the respondents to consider the Visa application dated 22-02-2024 and grant him an entry for his medical treatment into the country.

[Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act] 15-Months Time For Moving No-Confidence Motion Commences When President Assumes Office: High Court

Case Title: P Reethi Mune Gowda AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO.1508 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 273

The Karnataka High Court has held that the fifteen-month period for calling for a no-confidence motion under Section 49(1) of the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, is to be counted from the date of election not of the first President but from the date when the new President in the middle of the term of the Panchayat assumes office.

A Division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit allowed an appeal filed by one P Reethi Mune Gowda, and set aside the order of the single judge bench which had held that she had assumed the office of Bengaluru Grama Panchayat, from when the election results were declared. Since fifteen months expired on 26.05.2023 counted from the date 27.12.2021 when the first President was elected, there was no prohibition for moving the no-confidence motion.

[Cheque Dishonour] Merely Raising Doubt Without Adducing Credible Evidence Not Sufficient To Rebut Presumption U/S 113 Of NI Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Parvathamma M AND Chandrakala V

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2015

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 274

The Karnataka High Court has said that the presumption against an accused under Section 113 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a rebuttable presumption, but the said rebuttable presumption must be rebutted by adducing credible evidence, and merely raising a doubt is not sufficient.

A single judge bench of Justice Ramachandra D Huddar made the observation while allowing the appeal filed by Parvathamma M and setting aside the order passed by the trial court acquitting accused Chandrakala V, who was charged under Section 138 of the Act.

Husband's Paramour Is Not Relative Or Family Member, Cannot Be Dragged Into Proceedings U/S 498A IPC: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: ABC & ANR AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 88 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 275

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code by a woman against the paramour of her husband.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by the woman and her mother who were arrayed as accused in the case registered under sections 498A, 323, 324, 307, 420, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

[Cheque Dishnonour] Accused Must Place Evidence To Prove Claim That Complainant Misused Cheque Issued To Another Person: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: A M Harish Gowda AND Chaluvaraju H S

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.619 OF 2021

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 276

The Karnataka High Court has upheld the order of conviction handed down to an accused who was charged under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda while dismissing the petition filed by A M Harish Gowda, turned down his contention that the cheque issued in favour of one Prabhakar had been misused by the complainant Chaluvaraju H to file a false case against the accused.

The court said, “It is pertinent to note that said Prabhakar is not even examined on behalf of the accused, nor any material like counterfoil or cheque issuing register is placed on record so as to establish that the cheque has been issued in favour of Prabhakar.”