Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 28 To November 3, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 450 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 454

Nominal Index:

Lalji Kesha Vaid AND Dayanand R. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 450

G V Prasad & ANR AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 451

Mohammed Shiyab AND National Investigating Agency. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 452

Akash Jaiswal AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 453

Mahantesh S Nagur AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 454

Judgments/Orders

Cheque Bounce Complaint U/S 138 NI Act Maintainable Even If Civil Suit For Recovery Is Instituted: Karnataka High Court Reiterates

Case Title: Lalji Kesha Vaid AND Dayanand R

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.331 OF 2022.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 450

The Karnataka High Court has held that a complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would be maintainable, notwithstanding the civil suit filed for recovery of the money.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus white dismissing a petition filed by one Lalji Kesha Vaid. It said “The complaint for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act would be maintainable, notwithstanding recovery proceedings initiated by institution of a civil Suit, though both spring from the same cause of action.”

Death By Negligence | Prosecution U/S 304A IPC Not Permissible If Offence U/S 92 Of Factories Act Already Initiated: Karnataka HC

Case Title: G V Prasad & ANR AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200662 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 451

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that initiating prosecution under Section 304-A (causing death by negligence) of the Indian Penal Code, against the owners/manager of a factory is impermissible when already prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, has been initiated.

A single judge bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz allowed the petitioner filed by G. V Prasad and another and quashed the proceedings initiated against him under Section 304-A of IPC.

The court said, “This Court is of the considered view that prosecution under Section 304-A of IPC against the petitioners while prosecution for the offence punishable under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948, is initiated, is not permissible, as there cannot be a parallel or simultaneous prosecution in respect of the very same incident, in view of the punishment provided under Section 92 of the Factories Act, 1948.”

Karnataka High Court Upholds Order Nixing Murder Accused's Plea For Trial Courts To Affix Initials On Each Page Of Case Diary

Case Title: Mohammed Shiyab AND National Investigating Agency

Case No: WRIT APPEAL NO. 102 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 452

The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order which dismissed the plea of a murder accused seeking a direction to the trial courts to affix their signature or initials on every page of the case diary maintained by the investigation agencies when produced before it, to prevent any tampering and fabrication.

In doing so the court said it can only interpret the law and not enact it in the guise of interpretation, when no such provision for signing the case diary was provided in the relevant law.

Karnataka HC Quashes Criminal Case Against Pilot Under Aircraft Act After Plane Flown By Him Toppled During Take Off

Case Title: Akash Jaiswal AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 9224 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 453

The Karnataka High Court has said that an offence under Section 11 of the Aircraft Act is not maintainable unless a complaint is filed with prior sanction to prosecute from the competent authority.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus and allowed the petition filed by a pilot Akash Jaiswal against and quashed the proceedings initiated against him under Section 11A.

As per the prosecution Jaiswal was flying an aircraft at Jakkur Aerodrome in 2020 and at the time of take off, the flight veered to the left side and due to such veering, toppled. However, no injuries to any person nor to the petitioner were recorded.

Karnataka HC Refuses To Let BESCOM Officer 'Off Hook' For Deaths After Transformer Burst, Says Compensation Doesn't Mask Dereliction Of Duty

Case Title: Mahantesh S Nagur AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No. 6647 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 454

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash criminal prosecution initiated against a Junior Engineer in BESCOM, after a father and her daughter died by electrocution due to a transformer burst on a road.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Mahanthesh S Nagur and said, “There are several complaints, before the fateful day, to rectify the defect in the transformer. The Police, on investigation, have appended those complaints to the charge sheet. These are undisputed facts. Prima facie negligence is writ large qua the petitioner, or other accused in the case at hand. Therefore, there is no warrant to interfere with the on-going trial against the petitioner.”