Karnataka High Court Monthly Digest: March 2022 [Citation: 53 to 97]

Shivanand S/O Karabasappa Gurannavar v. Basavva @ Laxmi W/O Shivanand Gurannavar 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 53

M/S SAPL-GCC JV v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 54

Dhondiba Anna Jadhav v. The State Of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 55

Padmanabha v. State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 56

Michael Graham Prince v. Mrs. Nisha Misra 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 57

L.S. Tejasvi Surya v. State Of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 58

Bibi Ayesha Khanum v. Union Of India 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 59

Rabiya Abdul Hamid Bepari v. The Chairman, School Managing Committee, Volkart Academy. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 60

K T Naveen Kumar And The State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 61

Dr S Srinivasa v. Mandya University 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 62

Devendra Pai Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 63

Dr Shantha Raj T R v. The State By Sub Inspector of Police 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 64

M/s. Prashanthi Affiliates Versus Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 65

Meera Ajith v. John Doe Alias Ashok Kumar 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 66

Thippeswamy @ Thipeshi v. State By Jagalur P.S 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 67

Kumari M. v. The State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 68

Chiranjeevi M. Kulkarni v. Karnataka State Law University 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 69

Amol Kale v. State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 70

Darshan And State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 71

Kum. Mayavathi v State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 72

Union of India and Ors. v. M/s Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 73

Mahantesh v. Netharavati, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 74

Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

Snapdeal Pvt. Ltd V State Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 76

Narendra Prasad P. V N. Sujatha, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 77

Sunil Chajed v State of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 78

Navodaya Medical College V. The State Of Karnataka, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 79

Kasturi Rajupeta V. Union Of India, 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 80

Bhavith Sheth V. State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 81

Vijaya v Shekharappa 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 82

Law Students Association v. State of Karnataka 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 83

Archana M G v. Abhilasha 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 84

Mrs. Prachi Sen v. Ministry Of Defence 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 85

State Of Karnataka v. Somanna 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 86

Praveen Surendiran V. State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 87

Dasari Chakradhar V The Registrar (Evaluation) 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 88

Hrishikesh Sahoo v. State of Karnataka & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 89

Prabhuraj V. The State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 90

Varavara Rao @ Pendyala V. State Of Karnataka: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 91

State Of Karnataka v. Asif Rasoolsab Sanadi 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 92

 Muthanna Mapangada vThe State Of Karnataka 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 93

S. SHYAMALA @ KATHYAYANI v. B. N. MALLIKARJUNAIAH  2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 94

 Tanaji S/O Nayaku Nikam v. Bharati W/O Tanaji Nikam  2022 Livelaw (Kar) 95

 Irfan Pasha v State of Karnataka  2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 96

 MRS DEPHNY GLADYS LOBO v. ASST COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT SENIOR CITIZEN MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 97

JUDGMENTS/ORDERS

1. Maintenance Awarded To Wife Under Domestic Violence Act Cannot Be Enhanced U/S 127 CrPC: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Shivanand S/O Karabasappa Gurannavar v. Basavva @ Laxmi W/O Shivanand Gurannavar Case No: Criminal Petition No.101378/2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 53

The Karnataka High Court has held that maintenance awarded to an estranged wife under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, cannot be enhanced on an application made by her under section 127 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC).

A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna said, "A maintenance that is awarded under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. can be varied in an application filed under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. What is sine qua-non is that an order of maintenance should precede a petition under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C., failing which, a petition under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. seeking enhancement of maintenance is not available."

2. Central Govt Can't Upset Tenders On Baseless Allegations Made By Unsuccessful Bidders: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/S SAPL-GCC JV v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.11165 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 54

The Karnataka High Court has observed that the decision of awarding tenders of gigantic value, cannot be readily upset by the Central Government on some baseless allegation being made by the unsuccessful bidders. A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit, set aside the order dated 15.04.2021, passed by the Central government by which it had constituted a Committee to conduct a detailed investigation into allegation of some irregularities perpetrated in awarding tender to M/S SAPL-GCC JV, by the New Mangalore Port Trust.

3. Prenatal Sex Determination | Magistrate Can't Take Cognizance Of Complaint Unless Filed By 'Appropriate Authority' Notified By Govt: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Dhondiba Anna Jadhav v. The State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.101392/2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 55

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the under section 28 of the Pre-conception and Pre-natal Diagnostic Techniques (Prohibition of Sex Selection) Act, 1994, a Magistrate court cannot take cognizance of a complaint except it being registered by an 'Appropriate Authority' notified by the Central or the State government. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna recently quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against Dhondiba Anna Jadhav and others who run Sri Dhondida Anna Jadhav Memorial Hospital at Gokak, based on a complaint filed by the Taluka Health Officer.

4. Commercial Tax Office One Of The Hubs Of Corruption' :Karnataka High Court Confirms Conviction Of A Tax Officer Charged Under PC Act

Case Title: Padmanabha v. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Appeal 200043/2015

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 56

Observing that, "corruption is a distinct type of offence. It is like cancer to society. It eats the social and economical health every second resulting in unimaginable consequences," the Karnataka High Court recently confirmed the conviction handed down to a Commercial Tax officer under various provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda dismissed the appeal filed by accused Padmanabha challenging an order of the special court dated April 6, 2015, by which it sentenced the accused to 2 and half years of simple imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh under section 7 of the Act and sentenced him to four years simple imprisonment under section 13 (1) (d) of the Act.

5. Overseas Citizens Of India Can Seek Divorce Before Indian Courts Against OCI Partner : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Michael Graham Prince v. Mrs. Nisha Misra Case No: Writ Petition No.15356 Of 2020

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 57

The Karnataka High Court has held that Overseas Citizenship of India (OCI) cardholders can seek matrimonial reliefs before appropriate courts in India, against the estranged partner who is also an OCI cardholder. A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "Subsection 2 of section 7B of the Citizenship Act, excludes certain rights from being granted to the OCI Cardholders. However, this exclusion does not cover the right to seek matrimonial reliefs at the hands of the native Courts. The subject statutory notifications do not in so many words vest in them such a right to litigate may be true; but, that per se does not divest them of such a right which otherwise avails even to the OCI Cardholders."

6. Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Permission Granted By Magistrate To Proceed With Investigation Against Tejasvi Surya

Case Title: L.S. Tejasvi Surya v. State Of Karnataka Case no: Criminal Petition No.9961/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 58

The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the permission granted by a magistrate court to proceed with the investigation against Member of Parliament, L S Tejasvi Surya, under provisions of the Representation of People Act. A single judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav, while relegating the matter back to the magistrate court for fresh consideration said, "In accordance with the mandate under Section 155(2) of Cr.P.C, the informant is to be referred to the Magistrate which is preceded by the officer in-charge of the police station having made out necessary entry of the substance of the information in the book kept as mandated under Section 155. The Magistrate is to examine the informant and the complaint given by him and then proceed further."

7. Karnataka High Court Issues Directions To Ensure Victim Is Given Notice Of All Bail Proceedings Concerning POCSO Cases

Case Title: Bibi Ayesha Khanum v. Union Of India Case No: Writ Petition No.2318 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 59

The Karnataka High Court recently issued directions for the effective implementation of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act 2012, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Rules, 2020, particularly in cases where the accused were to move the Court for grant of bail. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj disposing of a public interest litigation filed by a mother of a survivor, said, "None can have any doubt that offences under the POCSO Act are heinous in nature and are more often than not committed by depraved persons."

8. Civil Court Not Barred By Education Act To Hear Recovery Suit Filed By Teacher 'Discharged' From Service Sans Order On Her Claim:Karnataka HC

Case Title: Rabiya Abdul Hamid Bepari v. The Chairman, School Managing Committee, Volkart Academy Case no: R.F.A.NO.100061/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 60

The Karnataka High Court has held that a civil court has jurisdiction to hear and decide on a suit filed by a teacher claiming arrears in salary, if she is discharged from her duties on account of closure of the school and no order is passed by the school management on her claims seeking arrears in salary. A Division bench of Dr.Justice H.B.Prabhakara Sastry and Justice S. Rachaiah recently set aside the order dated November 9, 2020 passed by the civil court by which it had rejected the plaint filed by an Urdu teacher, on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The court directed the Trial Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

9. Gauri Lankesh Murder: Karnataka High Court Directs Jail Superintendent To Provide Treatment To Accused In Private Hospital

Case Title: K T Naveen Kumar And The State of Karnataka Case no: Criminal Petition 10232/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 61

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Superintendent of Jail to shift and provided treatment to K T Naveen Kumar, an accused in the journalist Gauri Lankesh murder case, in a private hospital. A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan while allowing the petition, set aside the order of Special Court dated December 31, 2021 and said, "The Superintendent of jail is directed to provide treatment to the petitioner in the Columbia Asia hospital HSR Road, Bengaluru which is situated 7.7 kms from Parappana Agrahara Jail. The petitioner is also directed to bear the entire medical expenditures which will be charged by the hospital authority. The jail Superintendent is directed to provide sufficient security forces during the treatment and shifting the petitioner to the hospital and back."

10. Karnataka High Court Directs Mandya University To Continue Guest Lecturers For Another Academic Year Until Recruitment Of Full-Time Lecturers

Case Title: Dr S Srinivasa v. Mandya University Case No: WA 105/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 62

The Karnataka High Court recently directed the Mandya University to continue the services of guest lecturers for another academic year, until the recruitment of full time lecturers as initiated by the University is completed. A Division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj while allowing an intra-court appeal filed by Dr S Srinivasa and others challenging the order of the single judge bench dated December 21, 2021, said, "The Guest Lecturers now working shall be entitled to the benefit of the Notification dated 7.10.2021 for extension of service by one more academic year until the recruitment of lecturers is completed."

11. AO Can't Take Advantage Of Assessee's Ignorance To Collect More Tax: Karnataka High Court Condones Delay Of 6 Years In Filing Revised ITR

Case Title: Devendra Pai Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Case No.: Writ Petition No. 52305/2018 (T-IT)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 63

A bench of Karnataka High Court consisting of Justice Sunil S.Yadav has condoned the delay of 6 years in filing revised Income Tax Return (ITR). A single judge bench of Justice Sunil S.Yadav has observed that the intention of Circular No.014 (XL-35) dated 11.04.1955 was not that tax due should not be charged or that any favour should be shown to anybody in the matter of assessment, or where investigations are called for, they should not be made. Whatever the legitimate tax it must be assessed and must be collected. The purpose of the circular is merely to emphasise that the tax officer should not take advantage of an assessee's ignorance to collect more tax out of him than is legitimately due from him.

12. SC /ST Prevention Of Atrocities Act Is Prospective In Nature, Act Committed Prior To Its Enactment Not An Offence: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Dr Shantha Raj T R v. The State By Sub Inspector of Police Case No: Criminal Petition 7980/2014

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 64

The Karnataka High Court has held that the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, is prospective in nature and alleged acts committed before its enactment cannot be an offence. A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "The offences allegedly been committed ago i.e., on 18.10.1975; complaint was filed with inordinate delay with no plausible explanation for the same. Ordinarily, the stale claims would not be entertained."

13. District Magistrate Empowered To Attach Property, Not Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Commissioner: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/s. Prashanthi Affiliates Versus Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No.921/2012

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 65

The Karnataka High Court has held that the District Magistrate is empowered to attach the property and not the Commissioner of Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike Commissioner (BBMP). The single bench of Justice S.P.Sandesh has observed that the Commissioner of BBMP, has no authority to attach the property as ordered by the Special JMFC (Sales Tax) Court and it ought to be enforced under Section 421(1)(b) of Cr.P.C, through the collector of the District.

14. 'John Doe' Injunction Order To Protect Property Possession Can Be Passed If There Is Threat From Unknown Persons : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Meera Ajith v. John Doe Alias Ashok Kumar Case No: MFA 806/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 66

The Karnataka High Court has passed an order of temporary injunction restraining unknown persons (also known as John Doe order) from interfering with the peaceful possession of the property owned by a woman in Bengaluru. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar while hearing an appeal filed by one Meera Ajith, said, "Order XXXIX Rule 1(a) CPC states that an order of temporary injunction may be granted against any party to the suit. According to Clauses (b) & (c), injunction may be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaint must disclose the names and identity of the parties. But in a situation as has been made out in this case, if there is a threat to the possession of the plaintiff by unknown person/s, is it possible to say that injunction cannot be granted. I do not think that injunction can be denied if circumstances are as such that there is a serious threat to the possession of the plaintiff by unknown persons."

15. Classic Case Of Negligence': Karnataka High Court Orders Sensitization Of Medical Officers Examining Minor Victims Of Sexual Assault

Case Title: Thippeswamy @ Thipeshi v. State By Jagalur P.S Case No: Criminal Petition No.9980/2021

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 67

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Principal Secretary, Health Department to issue a circular and a direction to all Medical officers working in the state, prescribing their duties and responsibilities towards a child victim of sexual assault, who is produced before them.

A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh also directed the Principal Secretary to take action against a doctor working in the Taluk Government Hospital, Jagalur, Davanagere District, who conducted medical examination of the victim in this case and issued a Sexual Assault certificate in this case, without giving any opinion.

16. Pregnancy May Lead To Depression: Karnataka High Court Permits Minor Rape Victim To Terminate 22.5 Weeks Old Foetus

Case Title: Kumari M. v. The State Of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.100875/2022

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 68

The Karnataka High Court recently permitted a minor rape victim to terminate her 22 weeks 3 days old pregnancy, upon noting that continuation of the same can develop anxiety, which could lead to depression effecting her mental health. A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, "I am of the opinion that, it would be in the interest of the petitioner-victim, that the pregnancy is terminated." Following which it directed the District Civil hospital (Belagavi) to medically terminate the pregnancy of the petitioner by adopting all required safety considerations for such a procedure.

17. KSLU 3 Yrs LLB Students In Second & Fourth Semesters To Get Two Chances To Appear In Exams: High Court Orders

Case Title: Chiranjeevi M. Kulkarni v. Karnataka State Law University Case No: Writ Petition No.100869/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 69

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Karnataka State Law University to conduct offline examinations for students of 3 years LLB Course, studying in the 2nd and 4th semester, twice⁠— once from March 7 onwards and next from May 16 onwards. The direction has been passed as a one time measure, only for this academic year taking into account the various litigations as also the Covid-19 Pandemic.

18. Karnataka High Court Dismisses Appeal Filed By 10 Accused Seeking Default Bail In Gauri Lankesh Murder Case

Case Title: Amol Kale v. State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Appeal No.537/2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 70

The Karnataka High Court recently dismissed an appeal filed by 10 accused allegedly involved in the murder case of journalist Gauri Lankesh, challenging an order rejecting their application for default bail by the special court.

A single judge of Justice K.S.Mudagal while dismissing the appeal filed by prime accused Amole Kale and others said, "The attack on the impugned order was that the charge sheet was not filed on 23-11-2018, but that was ante-dated. The trial Court rejected the said contentions. The appellants did not seek any administrative action against the Ministerial officer who allegedly interpolated the date 23-11-2018 nor the presiding officer on the ground of judicial impropriety. Under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 illustration (e) there is presumption that judicial acts or official acts have been regularly performed. Except for scandalising the office staff and the Judge, nothing was done to rebut the said presumption."

19. His Future Can't Be Put To Jeopardy': Karnataka HC Permits 19 Yrs Old Rape Accused In Judicial Custody To Physically Appear For Annual Exams

Case Title: Darshan And State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition/ 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 71

The Karnataka High Court recently permitted a 19-years old, who is in judicial custody in connection with the rape of a minor girl, to appear for his annual examination by physically attending the examination centre.

Justice V Srishananda while disposing of the petition filed by the accused said, "Just because, the case is pending against the petitioner herein, which is being investigated in Crime No.8/2022, his future cannot be put to jeopardy."

20. Karnataka High Court Quashes 8 Year Old Case Against BSP Chief Mayavathi

Case Title: Kum. Mayavathi v State of Karnataka Case no: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7626/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 72

The Karnataka High Court recently set aside an eight year old criminal case pending against Mayavathi, Former Chief Minister & President Of Bahujan Samaj Party and Sathish Chandra Mishra National General Secretary & Member of Parliament, Bahujan Samaj Party.

A single Judge bench of Justice Sunil Dutt Yadav said "In view of the explanation of the petitioners having been accepted by the Election Commission of India, the continuance of the present proceedings would not secure the ends of justice."

21. Karnataka High Court Orders GST Refund of Rs. 27 Crores Illegally Collected from Swiggy

Case Title: Union of India and Ors. v. M/s Bundl Technologies Pvt. Ltd. Case no: W.A. No.1274 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 73

The Karnataka High Court has ordered the Goods and Service Tax (GST) department to refund Rs. 27 crore, which was illegally collected from Swiggy. The division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M. G. S. Kamal, while dismissing the appeal of the Central Government, observed, "Article 265 of the Constitution mandates that the collection of tax has to be by the authority of law."

22: Insurance Company Not Liable To Pay Compensation If Heavy Goods Vehicle Is Driven By Person Holding Light Motor Vehicle License:Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Mahantesh v. Netharavati Case No: M.F.A. No.100096/2019 (MV)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 74

The Karnataka High Court has said that the insurance company will not be liable to pay compensation, if a heavy goods vehicle is driven by a person holding a light motor vehicle license. A single judge bench of Justice S Vishwajit Shetty while partly allowing an appeal filed by one Mahantesh, owner of a tipper lorry said, "The vehicle in question which is categorised as a heavy goods vehicle comes within the meaning of Section 2(16) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as the gross vehicle weight undisputedly exceeds 12000 kg. Under the circumstances, the Tribunal was fully justified in holding that the offending vehicle was used in violation of the terms and conditions of the policy and therefore the insurer of the offending vehicle was not liable to pay the compensation."

23: 'Hijab Not Essential Religious Practice In Islam':Karnataka High Court Dismisses Muslim Girls' Petitions Against Hijab Ban In Classrooms

Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

Wearing of hijab is not a part of Essential Religious Practice in Islamic faith and thus, is not protected under Article 25 of the Constitution, the Karnataka High Court has held today. A Full Bench of the High Court further held that prescription of school uniform by the State is a reasonable restriction the students' rights under Article 25 and thus, the Government Order issued by the Karnataka government dated February 5 is not violative of their rights.

24: Karnataka Education Act Empowers Government To Prescribe Uniform: Karnataka High Court In Hijab Case

Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday upheld the validity of the Government order dated February 5, providing for prescription of dress code in educational institutions.

A full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishan S Dixit and Justice J M Khazi said, "Section 133(2) of the (Education) Act which is broadly worded empowers the government to issue any directions to give effect to the purposes of the Act or to any provision of the Act or to any Rule made thereunder."

25: Hijab Ban | Prescription Of Uniform Dress Code For All Students Serves 'Constitutional Secularism': Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday, while upholding the ban on wearing hijab in government colleges, observed that prescription of a uniform for all students will promote a sense of "constitutional secularism" within the institution. "The school regulations prescribing dress code for all the students as one homogenous class, serve constitutional secularism", the Court observed.

26: Holy Quran Does Not Mandate Wearing Of Hijab; Islam Does Not Cease To Exist If Hijab Is Not Followed : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

The Karnataka High Court, while declaring that the wearing of hijab by Muslim women is not an 'essential religious practice' in Islamic Faith, said that, "The Holy Quran does not mandate wearing of hijab or headgear for Muslim women". The Court also observed that the prescriptions in suras regarding Hijab are not mandatory. "The Holy Quran does not mandate wearing of hijab or headgear for Muslim women. Whatever is stated in the above sūras, we say, is only directory , because of absence of prescription of penalty or penance for not wearing hijab, the linguistic structure of verses supports this view", the Court observed.

27: Hijab Ban| Insistence On Wearing Purdah, Veil Or Headgear In Any Community May Hinder Emancipation Of Women : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

The Karnataka High Court, while upholding the ban on wearing hijab in educational institutions, has said that the insistence on wearing of purdah, veil, or headgear in any community may hinder hinder the process of emancipation of woman in general and Muslim woman in particular. A full bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice Krishna S Dixit and Justice J M Khazi said, "There is a lot of scope for the argument that insistence on wearing of purdah, veil, or headgear in any community may hinder the process of emancipation of woman in general and Muslim woman in particular. That militates against our constitutional spirit of 'equal opportunity' of 'public participation' and 'positive secularism'."

28: Hijab Issue - Speedy Investigation Needed Against "Unseen Hands" At Work To Create Social Unrest : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Resham v. State of Karnataka and Others with connected cases

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 75

The Karnataka High Court in its judgement upholding the ban on wearing hijab has said it expects a speedy & effective investigation into the matter against 'unseen hands' who are at work to engineer social unrest and disharmony. A full bench led by Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi said, "From the submissions made on behalf of the Respondent – Pre – University College at Udupi and the material placed on record, we notice that all was well with the dress code since 2004."

29: 'Intermediary Not Liable For Actions Of Vendors': Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against 'Snapdeal' For Sale Of Drugs Without License

Case Title: Snapdeal Pvt. Ltd V State Of Karnataka, Case No: CRL.P.No.102191/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 76.

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act against Snapdeal Private Limited and its directors Kunal Bahl and Rohit Kumar Bansal for allegedly allowing sale of drug - Suhagra tablets, on its online portal without possessing a valid license.

Justice MG Uma said, "Intermediary as defined under Section 2(w) of IT Act or its Directors/Officers would not be liable for any action or inaction on the part of the vendor/seller making use of the facilities provided by the intermediary in terms of a website or a market place and that the Snapdeal/accused No.2 could not be responsible and/or liable for sale of any item not complying with the requirements under the Act on its platform by accused No.1 since the essential ingredients of Section 18(1)(c) of the Act not having been fulfilled neither Snapdeal nor its Directors can be prosecuted for the offence under Section 27(b)(ii) of the Act."

30: Private Complaint Is Maintainable If Forgery Took Place Outside Court Before Producing Document As Evidence: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Narendra Prasad P. V N. Sujatha Case No: Criminal Revision Petition No.692/2019

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 77

The Karnataka High Court has said that a private complaint made before the magistrate court alleging offence under section 191 of Indian Penal Code is maintainable, if the forgery of document took place outside the Court before the document was produced as evidence in the court proceedings. A single judge bench of Justice H P Sandesh set aside the order of the magistrate court dismissing a private complaint and remanded the matter back for fresh consideration. It said,

31: Tahsildar Under Section 140(2) Of Karnataka Land Revenue Act Has Power To Determine Boundary Of A Survey Number Or A Holding: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Sunil Chajed v State of Karnataka Case No: WA 468/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 78

The Karnataka High Court has said that Tahsildar Under Section 140(2) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act has power to determine the boundary of a survey number or a holding. The aforesaid power can be exercised in respect of a survey number or a holding irrespective of the fact whether the same is situated within the Municipal limits or outside the municipal limits. A division bench of Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty while setting aside a single judge bench order dated October 1, 20202 said, "Section 140(2) of the Act provides that if any dispute arises concerning the boundary of survey number or a sub division of a survey number or a holding, the Tahsildar shall decide the dispute having due regard to the land records. Thus, it is evident that Tahsildar Under Section 140(2) of the Act has power to determine the boundary of a survey number or a holding."

32: Karnataka High Court Quashes Seat Matrix Of Telugu Linguistic Minority In A Medical College

Case Title: Navodaya Medical College V. The State Of Karnataka Case No: W.P.No.200365/2022

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 79

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the revised seat matrix issued on January 31, for postgraduate and undergraduate courses in medicine for the academic year 2021-22, by which only Telugu Linguistic minority students residing in Hyderabad-Karnataka region are allowed to apply in a Linguistic minority institution located in that region.

A division bench of Justice K. Somashekar And Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said, "The impugned communication dated 31.01.2022 and revised seat matrix are quashed in so far as it is applicable to the petitioner's institution (NAVODAYA MEDICAL COLLEGE).

33: No Need For Trial Court's Permission To Renew Passport When Criminal Proceedings Are Stayed By Higher Court : Karnataka HC

Case Title: KASTURI RAJUPETA v. UNION OF INDIA Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.19203 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 80

The Karnataka High Court has held that the permission from a trial court is not necessary for renewal of passport when the proceedings are stayed by a higher court. The Court directed the Regional Passport Officer to consider a woman's application for renewal of her passport without insisting upon a facilitative order from the concerned Criminal Court before whom a case registered against her is pending.

34: Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Dream11 Co-Founders, Says State's Ban On Online Gaming With Stakes Struck Off

Case Title: Bhavith Sheth V. State Of Karnataka Case No: WP 19287/2021

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 81

The Karnataka High Court recently quashed the proceedings initiated against Bhavit Sheth and Harsh Jain, the Founders and Directors of Sporta Technologies Private Limited, which promotes the 'Dream 11' gaming app. The duo had approached the court seeking to quash the FIR registered against them by the police under the Karnataka Police (Amendment) Act, 2021, which bans online gaming and gambling in the state.

35: Section 143A NI Act - Not Mandatory For Magistrate To Order Payment Of Interim Compensation : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Vijaya v Shekharappa Case No: Criminal Petition No.100261/2022

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 82

The Karnataka High Court has said that it is not mandatory for Magistrate Courts to pass orders directing interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, if the accused does not plead guilty.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "The Legislature has cautiously worded sub-section (1) of Section 143A not to make it mandatory in all cases where clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) would empower the learned Magistrate before whom proceedings are pending consideration to award interim compensation. It is the discretion conferred, as the word used is "may"."

36: Karnataka High Court Rejects Plea Challenging Continuation Of Dr. Ishwara Bhat As KSLU Vice Chancellor

Case Title: Law Students Association v. State of Karnataka Case No: WP 2125/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 83

The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by a non-profit organisation, Law Students Association, questioning the continuation of Prof. (Dr.) P. Ishwara Bhat as the Vice Chancellor of Karnataka State Law University, allegedly beyond the prescribed age limit of 65 years.

37. Caste Of A Person Is Determined By Birth, Married Women Acquire Caste Status Of Husband In Rare Circumstances: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Archana M G v. Abhilasha Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 3399 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 84

The Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by one Archana M G, a Grama Panchayat Member, challenging the order of the Civil court which unseated her on the ground of lack of social status as a Scheduled Tribe member. A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit said, "There is no dispute as to petitioner does not belong to Scheduled Tribe, by birth, although she claims to have acquired the said social status by marriage to a member of scheduled tribe. Ordinarily, caste is determined by birth and caste of a person follows that of his/her father."

38: Work From Home' Under Maternity Benefit Act Can Be Availed Only If Nature Of Work Permits So: Karnataka High Court Denies Relief To Woman

Case Title: Mrs. Prachi Sen v. Ministry Of Defence Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.22979 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 85

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that maternity benefits such as allowing an employee to work from home, under section 5 (5) of the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act 2017, could be given only in case where the nature of work assigned to the women is such that it is possible for her to work from home.

39: POCSO Act | Prosecution Can Cross Examine The Victim On Her Turning Hostile : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: State Of Karnataka v. Somanna Case No:. CRIMINAL PETITION No.8167/2020

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 86

The Karnataka High Court has said that under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, the prosecution can cross examine the victim on her turning hostile.

A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna said, "In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the POCSO Act, the Special Public Prosecutor or as the case would be, the counsel appearing for the accused shall, while recording examination-in-chief, cross-examination or re-examination of the child communicates the questions to be put to the child to the Special Court which shall in turn put those questions to the child. Therefore, the victim is permitted to be cross-examined under the POCSO Act itself on her turning hostile which would also cover the situation under sub-section (2) of Section 33 of the POCSO Act."

40: Court Cannot Impound Passport Under Section 104 CrPC, As It Can Be Done Only By Authority Under Passports Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Praveen Surendiran V. State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.1892 Of 2022

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 87

The Karnataka High Court has said that a court can impound any documents under section 104 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), but not the passport of an accused, as it can be done only under the Passports Act which is a special enactment. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "The power of impounding a document under Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. is available to a Court. This cannot stretch to an extent of impounding the passport. The passport coming within the purview of the Act and it being a special law would prevail over the provisions of Section 104 of the Cr.P.C. The Court can impound any document, but not the passport as it is dealt with under a special enactment. The power of impounding is available only to the Competent Authority under the Act, in terms of Section 10 of the Act."

41: Examiners Of RGUHS Flouting Exam Guidelines, Students Forced To Take Repeat Tests: Karnataka High Court Recommends Disciplinary Action

Case Title: Dasari Chakradhar V The Registrar (Evaluation) Case No: W.P. NO.1120/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 88

The Karnataka High Court has suggested to the Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health Sciences to take action against delinquent examiners in-charge of conducting Clinical Examinations for MBBS and MD courses, who are routinely found violating the guidelines issued by the University. A single judge bench of Justice P Krishna Bhat said, "It is necessary to observe that examiners appointed by the respondent- University seem to be routinely violating the guidelines issued by the University for holding the Clinicals examination. As a matter of fact, the learned counsel brought to my notice the order dated 22-12-2020 in Writ Appeal No.615 of 2020 (EDN-RES) (Rajiv Gandhi University Of Health Sciences V. Mr. Ramegowda Y. And Others), wherein also this Court had an occasion to notice such malpractice and direct re-conduct of practical examinations."

42: Husband Raping A Wife Is Amenable To Punishment Under Section 376 IPC: Karnataka High Court On Marital Rape

Case Title: Hrishikesh Sahoo v. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 89

The Karnataka High Court on Wednesday rejected a petition filed by a husband seeking to drop charges of rape pending against him under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code after his wife filed a complaint against him. Justice M Nagaprasanna emphasised that a man who is well acquainted with a woman and performs all the ingredients as is found in pre or post amendment to Section 375 can be proceeded against for offences punishable under Section 376, thereby establishing that a man sexually assaulting or raping a woman is amenable to punishment under Section 376 of IPC.

43: Marital Rape Exception Regressive, Violates Article 14; Husband Not Ruler Of Wife's Body & Mind : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Hrishikesh Sahoo And State Of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.48367 Of 2018

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 89

In a significant judgement, the Karnataka High Court has rejected a petition filed by a husband seeking to drop charges of rape under Section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, levelled against him by his wife. The Court did not accept the husband's argument that the charge cannot be framed against him due to the exception to marital rape from the offence of rape as per Exception 2 to Section 375 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court observed that the exemption cannot be absolute.

44: Man Accused Of Raping Wife & Minor Daughter - Special Court Can Try Offences Under S.376 IPC & POCSO : Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Hrishikesh Sahoo V State Of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.48367 Of 2018

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 89

The Karnataka High Court has said that the trial against the husband accused of rape and charged under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code and also of sexually assaulting his daughter and charged under sections of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act can be held before the Special POCSO Court. While refusing to quash the charges under Section 376 IPC against the husband ,a single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said , "The designated Court hearing cases relating to offences under the POCSO Act can try the offences under the IPC as well, in the facts of the case."

45: Landlord Can't Be Prosecuted Under Immoral Traffic Prevention Act If He's Unaware About Rented Premises Being Used As Brothel: Karnataka HC

Case Title: Prabhuraj V. The State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.415 Of 2022

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 90

The Karnataka High Court has quashed the criminal proceedings initiated against a man under the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956, on the ground that he was not aware that the premise he had given on rent, was being used for running a brothel. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by one Prabhuraj, stating, "In the light of Section 3(2)(b) of the Act (Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act, 1956) and the police themselves acknowledging that petitioner was not aware as to what was happening in the premises, permitting further proceedings to continue against the petitioner would degenerate into harassment and become an abuse of the process of law."

46: Karnataka Govt To Move Bombay High Court Seeking Permission To Produce Varavara Rao Before A Local Court In Alleged Naxal Attack Case

Case Title: Varavara Rao @ Pendyala V. State Of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No.1833 Of 2022

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 91

The Karnataka government has informed the High Court that it would be moving an application before the Bombay High Court or the National Investigation Agency Court in Mumbai, seeking to relax the bail conditions imposed on Telugu poet P Varavara Rao's to allow him to appear before a court in Karnataka's Tumkuru district, and face a trial pending against him. A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was informed by the prosecutor that, "A necessary application before the High Court of Bombay or National Investigation Agency Court, seeking relaxation of the bail conditions with regard to the petitioner not leaving the jurisdiction of National Investigation Agency Court at Bombay would be sought, only to face the trial in S.C.No.5019/2019."

47: Inhuman, Can't Ignore Her Trauma': Karnataka High Court Convicts Father For Sexually Assaulting Minor Daughter

Case Title: State Of Karnataka v. Asif Rasoolsab Sanadi Case No: Crl.A.No.100190/2017

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 92

Observing that, "there is no reason for the victim girl to give false evidence against her own father," the Karnataka High Court recently set aside an acquittal order passed by the trial court and sentenced the accused to suffer 10 years rigorous imprisonment, for sexually assaulting his daughter when she was a minor. A division bench of Justice H.T.Narendra Prasad and Justice Rajendra Badamikar noted that the victim must have undergone a lot of mental agony and shock by her father's act. It thus allowed the appeal filed by the prosecution and set aside the trial court judgement dated February 3, 2017, acquitting Asif Rasoolsab Sanadi.

48. Karnataka High Court Permits Flying Of Microlight Aircraft In Area Alleged To Be "Eco-Sensitive Zone" Of National Park, Till DGCA Reviews Permissions

Case Title: Muthanna Mapangada vThe State Of Karnataka, Case No: Writ Petition No.12880 Of 2021

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 93

The Karnataka High Court has permitted two aviation enthusiast/ certified pilots to fly microlight aircraft once a week in accordance with law, from the grass airstrip which they have built on their own lands in Kodagu district.

A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishna Kumar while disposing of the petition filed by Muthanna Mapangada and Kudimada Somanna Subbayya, said, "Meanwhile, the petitioners shall be entitled to fly the subject Micro-light Aircraft strictly in accordance with law once a week till the matter is decided by the respondent No.6 (Director General Of Civil Aviation)."

49: Mere Filing Of Criminal Case By Wife, Demand For Separate House Not 'Cruelty': Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree

Case Title: S. SHYAMALA @ KATHYAYANI v. B. N. MALLIKARJUNAIAH Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL No.3352/2016

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 94

The Karnataka High Court has said that merely for the reason that the wife was demanding a separate house and that she was in the habit of leaving the matrimonial house and going to her sister's and parents' house, the same cannot be termed as "cruelty" for the purpose of seeking a decree of divorce by the husband.

50: In Absence Of Specific Pleading By Party About Self Acquired Suit Property, It Is Presumed To Be Joint Family Property: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Tanaji S/O Nayaku Nikam v. Bharati W/O Tanaji Nikam Case No: Regular First Appeal No.100256/2015

Citation: 2022 Livelaw (Kar) 95

The Karnataka High Court has said that in absence of a specific pleading made by the defendants to a suit before the trial court that properties in the suit were self acquired, it is presumed that such properties acquired subsequently are with the aid of joint family properties and as such they acquire the character of joint family. A division bench of Justice H.T.Narendra Prasad and Justice Rajendra Badamikar said, "When there is no specific plea in the written statement, presumption is that, the properties acquired subsequently are with the aid of the joint family properties and as such, they acquire the character of joint family itself."

51: No Appeal Lies Against Special Court Order Rejecting Transfer Of Case U/S 20 NIA Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Irfan Pasha v State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Appeal no 755/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 96

The Karnataka High Court has said that an order passed by the Special Court on an application filed under section 20 of the National Investigation Agency Act, seeking to transfer the case from the special court, is an interlocutory order and the same cannot be challenged in appeal under section 21 of the Act, before the High Court.

A full bench comprising of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi, Justice B Veerappa and Justice P Krishna Bhat while deciding on a reference said, "An interlocutory application rejected by the Special Court vide order dated 22.02.2021 would not give rise to filing of an appeal under Section 21 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008."

52: Only 'Indian Citizens' Can Initiate Proceedings Under Senior Citizens Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: MRS DEPHNY GLADYS LOBO v. ASST COMMISSIONER AND PRESIDENT SENIOR CITIZEN MAINTENANCE TRIBUNAL, Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.6720/2016

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 97

The Karnataka High Court has held that only 'Indian Citizens' can initiate proceedings under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007. A Single Judge bench of Justice P. Krishna Bhat said, "It is evident that one of the essential elements for being designated a 'Senior Citizen' for the purposes of the Act is the person being an Indian citizen."