Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: March 21 To March 27, 2022

 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

Judgements/Orders/Reports

1: 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.

2: 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"."

3: 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.

4: 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."

5: 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.

6: 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."

7: 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."

8: 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."

9: 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.

10: 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.

11: 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."

12: 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."

13: 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."

Other reports

1: Transgender Students Harassed In Hostels, Forced To Drop Out': Plea In Karnataka High Court For Separate Accommodation, Notice Issued

Case Title: Dr. Trinetra Haladar Gummaraju V. State Government Of Karnataka Case No: Wp 19706/2021

The Karnataka High Court has issued notice to the state government and other respondents on a petition filed by India's one of the first transgender doctor, seeking directions to provide separate hostel facilities for transgender students in higher educational institutions.

A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice S R Krishna Kumar issued notice and posted the matter for hearing on June 6.