Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: November 7 to November 13, 2022

SHIVAPPA @ SHIVANAND HITTANAGI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 444

Supriya Shirnate & others And MRT Music & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 445

MOHAMMAD SHARIFF @ FAHIM HAJI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 446

PUNIT S/O BHIMSINGH RAJPUT v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 447

YELLAWWA v. SAVITRI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 448

GURUNAGOUDA @ GURUMURTHYGOUDA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 449

NAGESH & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 450

VIMALA RAMANATH PAWAR v. SENIOR MANAGER, CENTRALISED PENSION PROCESSING CENTRE & Others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 451

Case Title: VASANTH ADITHYA. J v. STATE BY KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 452

JAVVAJI DHANA THEJA & others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 453

RAHUL CHARI & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 454

HEENA THIRUMALI SATEESH & ANR v. M/S MINIMELT ENGINEERS INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 455

CHERIYAN M C & Others v. STATE BY JAYAPURA POLICE STATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 456

Judgments/Orders:

1. Ensure Necessary Training Of Officers On Handling Of Electronic Evidence: Karnataka HC To State DGP, Director Prosecution & Registrar General

Case Title: SHIVAPPA @ SHIVANAND HITTANAGI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100187 OF 2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 444

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Director General of the Police, the Director of Public Prosecution and HC Registrar (General) to make arrangements for necessary training of their officers in respect of receiving, handling, storage and use of electronic evidence.

A division bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Justice G Basavaraja sitting at Dharwad, issued the directions for better implementation of the directions already issued regarding the collection, handling and storing of electronic evidence, by coordinate benches in two other cases.

2. BREAKING|Karnataka HC Sets Aside Lower Court Order Blocking Twitter Accounts Of Congress & Bharat Jodo Yatra, Subject To Removal Of Infringing Material

Case Title: Supriya Shirnate & others And MRT Music & others.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 445

The Karnataka High Court today allowed the appeal preferred by Indian National Congress against a civil court order which directed Twitter to block the national party's user account and that of Bharat Jodo. The relief is subject to the party removing material from their handles that offend MRT Music's copyrights.

A division bench of Justices G. Narendar and PN Desai remarked, "The impugned order virtually grants an enlarged relief...Shutting out (blocking account) is punitive." The trial court yesterday directed Twitter to temporarily block the handles of Indian National Congress and Bharat Jodo after MRT Music in a suit accused the party of infringing its copyright by "illegal" use of KGF chapter-2's music in the videos uploaded by it on the microblogging platform.

3. Merely Because Victim Is Same Doesn't Mean Offence Is Same: Karnataka HC Permits Registration Of Separate FIRs For Minor's Rape By Several Accused

Case Title: MOHAMMAD SHARIFF @ FAHIM HAJI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.8502 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 446

The Karnataka High Court has upheld registering of multiple FIRs against different persons accused of rape based on the complaint of a minor girl who was allegedly forced into prostitution.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "There was physical contact of every man who had come in contact with a minor girl. Those are separate incidents which may have happened on the same day. The accused are different as every man was different. Merely because the victim is the same, it cannot be said that only one crime should have been registered and all of them should be put in one basket as accused in the said crime."

4. Irked By Recurring Instances Of Improper Police Investigations, Karnataka HC Asks DGP To Formulate SOP;Initiate Disciplinary Action For Violation

Case Title: PUNIT S/O BHIMSINGH RAJPUT v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100191 OF 2019 (C-) C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100194 OF 2019.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 447

Irked by the recurring number of cases where the Police investigation is not up to the mark, the Karnataka High Court has asked the Director General of Police to have a standard operating procedure (SOP) for investigating different crimes and to hold disciplinary proceedings against the investigating officers if the SOP established is not adhered to.

A division bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Justice G Basavaraja, while setting aside a Murder conviction, observed, "We have observed that the investigation has not been carried out properly. This is again not a stray occurrence but a very common occurrence that this Court has been coming across. Hence, it is required of the Director General of Police to make available refresher training from time to time to all the Investigating Officers and have a standard operating procedure to be established for investigation into different crimes, on penalty of disciplinary proceedings if the SOP is not adhered to."

5. 'Time Is Not Far When Handwritten Docs Will Not Be Accepted By Courts': Karnataka HC Asks DGP To Constitute Task Force For Digitization Of Records

Case Title: PUNIT S/O BHIMSINGH RAJPUT v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100191 OF 2019 (C-) C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100194 OF 2019.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 447

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Director General of Police (DGP) to establish a Task Force to work out a methodology of sharing the existing digital records with courts and to consider digitization of all processes. While dealing with a criminal appeal where it was put to "great difficulty" in going through the documents submitted by the investigation officer, a division bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj and Justice G Basavaraja said, "Time is not far when any handwritten documents will not be acceptable or accepted by a Court. Production of handwritten documents comes in the way of digitalization of the judicial process which is of prime importance today."

6. Can Plaint Be Returned For Lack Of Pecuniary Jurisdiction Without Following Order VII Rules 10, 10A CPC? Karnataka HC Answers

Case Title: YELLAWWA v. SAVITRI

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 109954 OF 2016

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 448

The Karnataka High Court has said that no civil court can return a plaint on the ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction without following the requirements of Rule 10 of Order VII of Code of Civil Procedure.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj sitting at Dharwad allowed the petition filed by one Yellawwa, mother of one late Army officer Anand and set aside the order passed by the trial court rejecting her application seeking to restrain the authorities including the bank from releasing any amount to her daughter-in-law out of the account maintained by them and disbursing any amount from dues available out of the account of the deceased.

7. Wife's Pregnancy No Ground For Bail Particularly When Criminal Investigation Is In Progress: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: GURUNAGOUDA @ GURUMURTHYGOUDA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100476 OF 2022 C/W CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100485 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 449

The Karnataka High Court recently refused bail to a man involved in a murder investigation, seeking release to attend his pregnant wife whose delivery date is soon due. A single judge bench of Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar sitting at Dharwad remarked, "Merely because the wife of appellant/accused No.29 is pregnant and her due date of delivery is 06.11.2022 as per medical records, is not a ground for grant of bail at this stage when the investigation is in progress."

8. 'Exercised Right Of Self Defence To Protect Property': Karnataka High Court Acquits Three Men Convicted For Injuring Cousins With Sickle

Case Title: NAGESH & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.580/2013

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 450

Observing that it is open for a court to consider the right of self defence if it arises from the material on record, the Karnataka High Court recently acquitted three men, who had attacked and injured their cousins during a property-related quarrel in 2008.

A single bench of Justice S. Rachaiah said Section 96 of the IPC provides that nothing is an offence which is done in exercise of the right of private defence. "It is settled principle of law that, even if the accused does not plead self defence, it is open to the Court to consider such a plea if the same arises from the material on record."

9. Recovery Of Excess Amount From Pensioners Cannot Be Done By Banks In One Stroke: Karnataka HC Comes To Aid Of 73 Yrs Old Widow

Case Title: VIMALA RAMANATH PAWAR v. SENIOR MANAGER, CENTRALISED PENSION PROCESSING CENTRE & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 20321 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 451

The Karnataka High Court has said that though recovery of excess amounts paid by banks to pensioners is permitted, that would not mean that the excess is to be recovered in one stroke. Such amount may be recovered in monthly installments, it said.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna was hearing the case of a 73-years-old widow aggrieved by the action of Canara Bank which debited Rs. 6,40,000 from her family pension account without even any communication.

10. Karnataka High Court Quashes FIR Against Lawyer Accused Of Throwing Water Bottle At Law Intern

Case Title: VASANTH ADITHYA. J v. STATE BY KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.9854 OF 2022.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 452

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case registered by the police against a lawyer under various sections of the Indian Penal Code and Information Technology Act, 2000, on a complaint filed by a Law Intern.

A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan allowed the petition filed by Advocate Vasanth Adithya. J and quashed the case registered for offences punishable under Sections 324, 341, 354, 506 and 509 and under IPC 67 IT Act. Earlier, in April the bench had refused to quash the case against the accused, observing that investigation was still under progress.

11. Release Of Seized Vehicle U/S 451 CrPC Cannot Be Refused Citing Identification Issues, Police May Photograph The Vehicle: Karnataka HC

Case Title: JAVVAJI DHANA THEJA & others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.9257 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 453

The Karnataka High Court has said that a trial court rejecting an application made under Section 451 and 457 of Criminal Procedure Code, for release of a vehicle seized in a criminal case, by owners, on the ground of identification of vehicle during trial is not correct.

A single judge bench of Justice K.Natarajan allowed the petition filed by Javvaji Dhana Theja and others and set aside the order dated 05.04.2022, by which their application for release of seized vehicles were rejected.

12. In Cases Involving UPI Intermediaries, Magistrates Cannot Direct Transfer Of Money From Their Account Without Hearing Them: Karnataka HC

Case Title: RAHUL CHARI & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.2865 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 454

The Karnataka High Court has directed the judicial magistrates to hear the bank account holders first, particularly in cases involving intermediaries, and then only pass directions for transfer of the amount while dealing with applications under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C.

The court asked the magistrates to not allow the applications filed under Sections 451 and 457 of the Cr.P.C in "a casual manner". Justice M Nagaprasanna said, "This Court is coming across scores and scores of cases where the account is frozen, defrozen and the amount that the complainant [claims] is due from a suspect or an accused is transferred to the account of the complainant from the account of third parties which action is contrary to all cannons of law."

13. Karnataka High Court Quashes Order Directing Transfer Of Money From PhonePe Director's Personal Account To Financial Fraud Victim

Case Title: RAHUL CHARI & ANR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA & others

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.2865 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (kar) 454

The Karnataka High Court has set aside a magistrate's order directing a bank to transfer Rs.69,143 from PhonePe Director Rahul Chari's personal account to the account of an online-financial-fraud victim. The woman had made the transaction using UPI app PhonePe

Justice M Nagaprasanna directed that the amount debited from Chari's account be refunded to his account forthwith. The court also directed the police to pursue the investigation into the victim's complaint on the financial fraud.

14. Complainant U/S 138 NI Act May Not Know Exact Role Of Company Directors, Basic Averment About Vicarious Liability Sufficient: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: HEENA THIRUMALI SATEESH & ANR v. M/S MINIMELT ENGINEERS INDIA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.2340 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 455

The Karnataka High Court has said that in proceedings initiated against directors of a company under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant is only expected to make necessary averments regarding their vicarious liability and thereafter, the burden is upon such directors to show that they are not liable to be convicted.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, "The complainant is supposed to know only generally as to who were in-charge of the affairs of the Company... the complainant is expected to allege that the persons named in the complaint are in-charge of the affairs of the Company... The burden would be on the Board of Directors or persons in-charge of the affairs of the Company to show that they are not liable to be convicted."

15. Karnataka High Court Dismisses Plea Challenging Appointment Of Complainant's Personal Lawyer As Public Prosecutor In SC/ST Case

Case Title: CHERIYAN M C & Others v. STATE BY JAYAPURA POLICE STATION

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.13035 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 456

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by an accused charged under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the Deputy Commissioner's decision to appoint the complainant's private lawyer as a special public prosecutor in the case.

Justice K.Natarajan said the SC/ST Rules empower the Deputy Commissioner to appoint an eminent lawyer on behalf of the victim under clause (5) of Rule 4.