Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 9 To September 15, 2024

Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 396 To 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 402

Nominal Index:

B S Suresh & ANR AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 396

H Mahadev AND K N Rajamma & others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 397

ABC AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 398

Priyanka Halamani AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 399

Muniyappa AND State of Karnataka. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 400

Disha Bhat AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 401

V Sunil Kumar AND Pramod Mutalik. 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 402

Judgments/Orders

Date Of Complaint Relevant For Determining Limitation U/S 468 CrPC To Prosecute An Offence, Date Of Cognizance Immaterial: Karnataka HC

Case Title: B S Suresh & ANR AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12339 OF 2023

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 396

The Karnataka High Court has said that in a complaint where the offence is punishable with a maximum sentence of three years, the limitation for filing the complaint u/s 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code, is one year from the date of occurrence of the cause of action and any complaint filed beyond that period is not maintainable.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by MLA B S Suresh and another and quashed the offences registered against them in 2019 under Section 285 of the IPC and Section 25 of the Karnataka Fire Force Act.

Presumption U/S 90 Evidence Act Not Applicable To Certified Copies Of Gift Deed, Beneficiary Must Prove Claim Over Property: Karnataka HC

Case Title: H Mahadev AND K N Rajamma & others

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS SECOND APPEAL No.24 OF 2019

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 397

The Karnataka High Court has said that a beneficiary of a gift deed has to prove his title over the property received under such a deed by examining witnesses. It held that a presumption in his favour under Section 90 of the Evidence Act cannot be drawn based on producing certified copies of the deed.

Section 90 of the Evidence Act reads thus: Presumption as to documents thirty years old. Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested.

Karnataka High Court Directs DGP To Alert Police Stations Regarding Woman Who Repeatedly Filed Unsubstantiated Cases Against Several Men

Case Title: ABC AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRL.P 1364/2023.

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 398

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Director General of Police and Inspector General of Police to communicate to all the state's police stations, the details of a woman complainant who had registered nine complaints/FIRs, against different persons alleging sexual harassment, criminal intimidation and also for offences punishable under Section 498A of IPC.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said “The details of the woman complainant be available on the database of the police stations, so that they could be cautious when the complainant would want to register a crime against any other man.”

[Compassionate Appointment] Lawmakers Defined 'Family' To Include Specific Relatives Of Employee, Daughter-In-Law Not One Of Them: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Priyanka Halamani AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.105264 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 399

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by a daughter-in-law, claiming compassionate appointment in the state's rural drinking water and sanitation department.

A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil dismissed the plea filed by Priyanka Halamani, who had challenged the order of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, which had rejected her application seeking a direction to the government to appoint her.

Karnataka HC Declines To Quash POCSO Case Against Teacher Who Allegedly Took Pictures/Videos Of Minor Girls While They Were Changing Clothes

Case Title: Muniyappa AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2418 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 400

The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash prosecution initiated against a drawing teacher of a private school, accused of recording videos and clicking photographs of minor girl students in the residential school when they were changing their dresses.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Muniyappa who is charged under Section 12 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).

Soliciting Multiple Expert Reports Creates Confusion & Chaos: Karnataka HC Denies Relief To Student Seeking Admission Under Visually-Impaired Quota

Case Title: Disha Bhat AND State of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.104218 OF 2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 401

The Karnataka High Court has refused relief to a 19-year-old girl who claimed to be visually impaired beyond 40% and sought a direction to the Karnataka Examination Authority to accept her candidature under the visually impaired quota.

A division bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice Vijaykumar A Patil dismissed the petition filed by Disha Bhat who had sought to void the Ocular Examination Report and accept the Report furnished by the Government Hospital, Dharwad. The Ocular examination report stated that the petitioner's Visual Disability is 0% (Zero Percent) in view of 6/18 Vision in both eyes.

Karnataka High Court Declines To Quash Defamation Case Against BJP Leader V Sunil Kumar On Complaint Made By Pramod Muthalik

Case Title: V Sunil Kumar AND Pramod Mutalik

Case No: WP 19821/2024

Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 402

The Karnataka High Court on Friday refused to quash criminal defamation proceedings initiated against Bharatiya Janata Party leader V Sunil Kumar, on the complaint made by Founder President of Sri Ram Sene, Pramod Muthalik.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition and orally said “This mudslinging should stop, elections are fought on making speeches against each other, not on what the party has done, what the government has done.”