Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 10 To October 16, 2022

SANJANA FERNANDES @ RAVEERA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 393

VENKATESHWARA DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 394

ABC v. STATE BY T.N.PURA POLICE STATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 395

M/S EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 396

MUKKARAM JAN v. SECURITIES EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 397

EDURKALA ISHWARA BHAT v. RAGHAVESHWARA BHARATHI SWAMIJI. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 398

SHIVAKUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 399

H.N. NAGARAJ v. SURESH LAL HIRA LAL. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 400

NARAYANA. B v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 401

B. L. SHANKARAPPA v. FEDERATION OF KARNATAKA CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (FKCCI) & others. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 402

J C MADHUSWAMY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 403

UJJAPPA NINGAPPA KAMDOD & ORS. v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 404

State of Karnataka by Amruthahalli Police Station v. Swetha. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 405

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD v. SUSILA W/O. SHAMRAO PATIL. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 406

Swathi v. State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 407

DR. SHAHUL HAMEED VALAVOOR & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANTWAL RURAL POLICE, BANTWAL. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 408

NAGARAJ v. ISHWAR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 409

Judgments/Orders

1. Wellness Therapist Or Tinder Date? Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash Proceedings Against Woman Accused Of Online Cheating

Case Title: SANJANA FERNANDES @ RAVEERA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8929 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 393

The Karnataka High Court has said the government should come up with some regulatory measures to check the growth of therapists, who offer their services online including via social media.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna observed, "It is in public domain that there are huge mushrooming of so called therapies and therapists on social media i.e., Instagram, Twitter or Facebook as the case would be, wherein therapists pose themselves to be in the field of any therapy. It is also in public domain that they are all pseudo-therapists who are "instagram influencers".

2. Karnataka HC Imposes Cost On Two Dental Colleges Litigating For Non-Admitted Candidates, Deprecates 'Speculative' Litigations

Case Title: VENKATESHWARA DENTAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.12902 OF 2022 (EDN-MED ADM) C/W WRIT PETITION No.12946 OF 2022 (EDN-MED ADM)

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 394

The Karnataka High Court has imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh each on two dental colleges for having wasted the court's time by filing "speculative" petitions seeking relief on behalf of few students who did not get admission to BDS courses, for the year 2021-2022.

3. DNA Test Report Favouring Accused In Rape Case Not Gospel Truth, Cross-Examination Of Doctor Necessary: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: ABC v. STATE BY T.N.PURA POLICE STATION

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6789 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 395

The Karnataka High Court has said that the DNA analysis report, which favours the accused in a rape case, is not a clinching evidence that would result in termination of proceedings against him.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna, while dismissing the accused's petition against the criminal proceedings, said: "If a positive result of the DNA comes about against the accused, it would constitute a clinching evidence against him for further proceeding. If the result is negative i.e., favouring the accused, then the weight of other materials and evidence on record will still have to be considered for corroboration. Therefore, it does not form such clinching evidence that would result in termination of proceedings against the accused, the petitioner in the case at hand."

6. Sanction U/S 33M Drugs & Cosmetics Act Required Only For Ayurvedic Drugs, Not Allopathic: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M/S EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS LTD v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6919 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 396

The Karnataka High Court has clarified that sanction to prosecute as mandated under Section 33M of the Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940 is applicable only in case of Ayurvedic, Siddha and Unani drugs and it is not applicable where prosecution relates to Allopathic drugs.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna made the observation while allowing the petition filed by Emcure Pharmaceuticals and its two Directors for quashing the complaint registered against them by the Drug Inspector under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.

5. SEBI Can't Prosecute Company For Delay After Payment of Dividends: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: MUKKARAM JAN v. SECURITIES EXCHANGE BOARD OF INDIA

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 397

The Karnataka High Court has said that the Securities and Exchange Board of India ("SEBI") has no power to initiate any action against a company or its directors which has defaulted in payment of dividend within 30 days as specified under Section 207 of the Companies Act, 1956, after payment of dividend.

A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed a criminal petition filed by Cranes Software Int. and its directors and said, "A combined reading of Section 55(A) and Section 207 of the Companies Act, 1956 clearly indicates that the SEBI is vested with power to safeguard the interests of the shareholders in the matter of non payment of dividends and the moment the dividends are paid, the SEBI has no power to initiate any action against the company or its directors who have defaulted in payment of dividend within 30 days as specified under Section 207 of the Act."

6. Temples Managed By Math Cannot Be Regulated Under Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions & Charitable Endowments Act: High Court

Case Title: EDURKALA ISHWARA BHAT v. RAGHAVESHWARA BHARATHI SWAMIJI

Case No: W.P. NO.25124 OF 2016

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 398

The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that Karnataka Hindu Religious Institutions and Charitable Endowments Act 1997 does not apply to a Math or a Temple attached to or managed by a Math and thus, no directions can be issued to the state government to exercise its executive power to regulate them.

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty observed, "The 1997 Act does not apply to the provisions of the Maths. There is a conscious omission on the part of the Legislature in keeping the Maths out of the purview of the Act, which is also evident from the statement of objects and reasons of Karnataka Act No.27 of 2011 namely the Amendment Act."

7. 'Mischievous And Preposterous': Karnataka HC Lambasts Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences For Registering FIR Against Panel Counsel

Case Title: SHIVAKUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7422 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 399

The Karnataka High Court has rapped the administration of Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences (RGUHS) for indulging in acts of registering cases against the advocates who represent it before the court, when the decision delivered is not in its favour.

"The University or the Registrar who has now sought to explain out the circumstances, is admonished and is directed to exercise caution while registering such reckless complaints in hottest haste. Any such iteration of the kind of haste, as seen in the case at hand, would be viewed seriously," said the court.

8. S.138 NI Act | Proprietor & Proprietary Concern Need Not Be Arrayed Separately As Accused: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: H.N. NAGARAJ v. SURESH LAL HIRA LAL

Case NO: CRL.P.NO.8257/2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 400

The Karnataka High Court has held that a proprietary concern is not a separate entity and as such, ought not to be arrayed as a separate accused in a case registered under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj observed, "In a proceeding under Section 138 of N.I.Act, the arraying of a proprietor as an accused or a proprietary concern represented by the proprietor would be sufficient compliance with the requirements under Section 138 of N.I.Act, the proprietor and the proprietary concern are not required to be separately arrayed as a party accused."

9. Authenticate Surety's Identity With Aadhaar, Maintain A Register Of Sureties: Karnataka High Court Issues Directions To Curb Fake Sureties

Case Title: NARAYANA. B v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 8524 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 401

The Karnataka High Court has issued a slew of directions to be followed by authorities whenever any surety is furnished for release of an accused on bail.

A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj while hearing a petition filed by the 65-year-old Narayana. B - who died during the pendency of the case. The case related to an instance of fake surety. The bench noted that several reports that have been filed before the court indicate that this is not a stray occurrence. It added that this kind of situation has arisen on several occasions and in some cases, investigation and prosecution has also taken place.

10.Federation Of Karnataka Chambers Of Commerce & Industry Is Not 'State' Under Article 12: High Court

Case Title: B. L. SHANKARAPPA v. FEDERATION OF KARNATAKA CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY (FKCCI) & others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.7123 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 402

The Karnataka High Court has held that Federation of Karnataka Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FKCCI) is a private entity and not an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution and thus, a writ petition is not maintainable against it.

A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit while dismissing a petition filed by B. L. Shankarappa said, "An association of persons incorporated or not, may undertake activities very much in public interest, say for example, it may profess to protect the sovereignty & integrity of nation; laudable it is, undoubtedly; however thereby, it does not become a 'State Agency' for the purpose of Part III of the Constitution."

11. [Undue Influence At Elections] Mere Endorsement On Police Requisition Not Sufficient To Prosecute Karnataka Law Minister JC Madhuswamy: High Court

Case Title: J C MADHUSWAMY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.6535/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 403

The Karnataka High Court has held that for initiating proceedings for non-cognizable offences under Sections 171-F and 171-C of IPC, the Magistrate must grant permission after due application of mind. A mere endorsement on the requisition made by the Police is not sufficient.

Holding thus, single judge bench of Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav set aside the proceedings initiated against State's Law Minister JC Madhuswamy and restored the matter to the stage of the informant having appeared before the police authorities.

12. Karnataka HC Directs Restoration Of De-Reserved Grazing Lands Not Utilized For Allotted Purpose, Compliance Of Land Revenue Rules In Future

Case Title: UJJAPPA NINGAPPA KAMDOD & ORS. v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS.

Case No: W.P.No.11546/2017

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 404

The Karnataka High Court has directed the state government to ascertain as to whether the grazing lands (mention in writ petition) which have been de-reserved have been utilised or allotted for the purpose for which they were de-reserved or whether any developmental activities have taken place in the said land.

It directed that if it is found that the said lands are not utilised or allotted for the purpose for which they were de-reserved, necessary action must be taken to restore the said lands as Gomal lands and thereafter take necessary steps to change the revenue entries of the said lands accordingly.

13. Karnataka High Court Upholds Woman's Acquittal Accused Of Abetting Partner's Suicide By Cheating On Him

Case Title: State of Karnataka by Amruthahalli Police Station v. Swetha

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1665 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 405

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed an appeal filed by the State government challening an order passed by the trial court acquitting a woman accused of abetting the suicide of a man who was in a relationship with her.

A single judge bench of Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar dismissed the appeal filed against the order acquitting the accused/respondent for the offence punishable under Section 306 of IPC.

14. Broken Tree Branch Kills Bike Rider: Karnataka High Court Allows Legal Heirs' Claim U/S 163A Motor Vehicle Act

Case Title: UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO., LTD v. SUSILA W/O. SHAMRAO PATIL

Case No: M.F.A. No.22468/2011

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 406

The Karnataka High Court recently allowed the claim filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicle Act by legal heirs of a deceased bike rider, who was killed after a big tree branch fell on his head while riding the bike.

The insurance company, in appeal against the award passed by Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, contended that the accident occurred because of fall of branch of eucalyptus tree and the same cannot be treated as a motorcycle accident and hence the company is not liable to pay the compensation.

15. 'Superficial Injury': Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Drama Artist 14. Accused Of Throwing Acid On Co-Artist To Eliminate Competition

Case Title: Swathi v. State of Karnataka

Case No: Criminal Petition no 8209/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 407

The Karnataka High Court has granted bail to a woman who allegedly, with a view to take revenge and spoil another woman co-artist's chances in getting roles in dramas, threw acid on her face.

A single judge bench of Justice K Natarajan allowed the petition filed by Swathi and directed the Committal Court to release her on bail in case registered by Nandini Layout Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 326A, 448 read with Section 34 of IPC, on execution of a personal bond for a sum of Rs.5,00,000, with two sureties for the like sum.

16.'Marriage Dissolved, Chargesheet U/S 498A Without Any Substance': Karnataka HC Quashes Proceedings

Case Title: DR. SHAHUL HAMEED VALAVOOR & Others v. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BANTWAL RURAL POLICE, BANTWAL.

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7036 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 408

The Karnataka High Court while quashing a case registered by a woman against her ex-husband and in-laws under section 498-A (dowry harassment) said the charge sheet filed on the basis of omnibus and general allegations is without any substance.

A single judge bench of Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowed the petition filed by Dr. Shahul Hameed Valavoor and others and quashed the prosecution registered under sections 498 A read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

17. Complainant's Presence Not Necessary While Recording Plea Of Accused: Karnataka High Court Restores Complaint U/S 138 NI Act

Case Title: NAGARAJ v. ISHWAR

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200033/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 409

The Karnataka High Court has said that an acquittal order cannot be passed by the trial court under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for non-appearance of the complainant while recording plea of accused.

A single judge bench of Justice P N Desai sitting at Kalaburagi allowed the petition filed by Nagaraj and restored the prosecution before Additional Civil Judge. The bench said, "For non-appearance of the complainant on each and every date of hearing, an order of acquittal cannot be passed in every case. The Court has to see the stage of the case and the previous appearance of the accused and complainant and how many years the complaint is pending and what is the nature of the case before passing any such dismissal order. Simply to dispose of the cases or get rid of the case, the complaint cannot be dismissed when there is no necessity of the presence of the complainant."