Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 31 – November 6, 2022 – Live Law – Indian Legal News

Nominal Index: [Citations 432 – 442] Farddin v. State and another. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 432 PRATHAP KUMAR.G v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 433 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. ALWIN LOBO. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 434 SAFWAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 435 MOHAMMAD WASEEM AHAMAD & Others v. 1 STATE BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION. 2022 LiveLaw…
Nominal Index: [Citations 432 – 442]

Farddin v. State and another. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 432
PRATHAP KUMAR.G v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 433
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. ALWIN LOBO. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 434
SAFWAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 435
MOHAMMAD WASEEM AHAMAD & Others v. 1 STATE BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 436
MANJULA.N v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY POLICE. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 437
XYZ v. ABC. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 438
VEENASHRI v. SHANKAR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 439
THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CUMAPPOINTING AUTHORITY KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY v. THE KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULED CASTES/SCHEDULED TRIBES COMMISSION & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 440
ALLABAKSH v. IMAM HUSSAIN. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 441
The State through Grameen Police Station v. Sharanu @ Sharanappa @ Sharanabasappa. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 442
Judgment/Orders
“Can’t Seek Bail Under The Guise Of Personal Law”: Karnataka HC Denies Relief To Man Accused Of Raping Minor Muslim Girl
Case title – Farddin v. State and another
Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 432
The Karnataka High Court recently denied bail to a man who allegedly raped a 16-year-old Muslim girl as it noted that even if the girl had consented to a physical relationship, her consent becomes irrelevant as she is a minor.
The bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar observed thus as it rejected the argument put forth by the counsel for the accused that the age of puberty was required to be taken note of as the parties are Mohammedans.
Road Accidents Involving Injury To Animals Do Not Attract ‘Rash Driving’ Offences U/S 279 IPC, S.134 & 187 MV Act: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: PRATHAP KUMAR.G v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1133 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 433
The Karnataka High Court has held that Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code which pertains to rash driving would not be attracted in cases of accident involving a pet dog/ animals.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj further held that such accidents would also not attract liability under Sections 134 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act which pertain to ‘Duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person’ and ‘Punishment for offences relating to accident’ respectively.
Order41 Rule 33 CPC: Karnataka High Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation Payable To Injured In Appeal By Insurance Company
Case Title: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. ALWIN LOBO
Case No: M.F.A.NO.8449/2015
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 434
The Karnataka High Court has said that in an appeal against compensation filed by an Insurance Company in a Motor Accident case, the appellate court can invoke Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC to enhance compensation, if injustice is caused to the victim or deceased due to compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.
Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC deals with the power of the Court of Appeal to pass an appropriate order in a case regardless of the fact that the appeal is only with respect to a part of the decree or that the appeal is filed only by some of the parties. In other words, the Appellate Court can pass an order as it deems it fit regardless of the scope of the appeal.
Protest Against SC’s Ayodhya-Babri Masjid Decision Promotes Religious Enmity: Karnataka High Court In Alleged PFI Activist’s Case
Case Title: SAFWAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.513 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 435
The Karnataka High Court has observed that protesting against Supreme Court’s decision in Ayodhya-Babri Masjid case delivered in the year 2019, is nothing but promoting enmity between two groups on the ground of religion.
However, the court allowed the petition filed by an alleged member of the Campus Front of India (which is also a part of the PFI), and quashed the criminal proceedings against him as the prosecution failed to obtain prior sanction from the state government for taking cognizance of offence under Section 153(A) .
Karnataka High Court Quashes POCSO Case Against Muslim Man For Impregnating Minor Wife
Case Title: MOHAMMAD WASEEM AHAMAD & Others v. 1 STATE BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION.
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5917 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 436
The Karnataka High Court has quashed the POCSO case registered against a Muslim man for impregnating his minor wife. The matter was put to rest after a settlement between the accused and the victim, who was married to him as per the Mohammedan Law.
The order was passed by Justice K.Natarajan on 10th October, two days before another single bench of the High Court declared that POCSO Act overrides personal law and thus, the age for involving in sexual activities is 18 years.
Contract Between Two Persons Allowing The Other To Seek Compassionate Appointment Not Binding On State: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: MANJULA.N v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY POLICE
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.33134/2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 437
The Karnataka High Court has said that an agreement entered between two persons allowing the other to seek compassionate appointment under Karnataka Civil Services (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) Rules,1996, cannot be enforced against the State.
A single judge bench of Justice S G Pandit dismissed the petition filed by Manjula. N seeking a direction to Deputy Commissioner of Police City, Armed Reserve Force, to consider her application for appointment on compassionate grounds.
Deserted Wife Entitled To Interim Maintenance Even If Divorce Petition Is Withdrawn: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: XYZ v. ABC
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.7582 OF 2022
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 438
The Karnataka High Court has said that maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is a matter of right to a neglected wife, even in cases where she withdraws the petition seeking divorce.
A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “The divorce petition being withdrawn by the wife is of no avail as the wife is still in the matrimonial fold with the husband. So long as the respondent remains a legally wedded wife of the petitioner and the fact that she has been deserted by the husband, interim maintenance is a matter of right to the wife.
Wife Cannot Be Made Accused in NI Act Case For Cheque Issued By Her Husband: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: VEENASHRI v. SHANKAR
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.2129 OF 2019
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 439
The Karnataka High Court has said proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be initiated against the wife for “dishonor of the cheque issued by her husband”.
A single judge bench of Justice M I Arun while allowing the petition filed by petitioner Veenashri and quashing the proceedings against her, said, “Petitioner cannot be made accused for dishonour of the cheque issued by her husband and he alone can be prosecuted for the same.”
Karnataka State Commission For SC/ST Has No Adjudicatory Power In Service Matters: High Court
Case Title: THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CUMAPPOINTING AUTHORITY KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY v. THE KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULED CASTES/SCHEDULED TRIBES COMMISSION & ANR
Case NO: WRIT PETITION No.36193/2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 440
The Karnataka High Court has said that the State Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes Commission is not conferred with adjudicatory powers under the Karnataka State Commission for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 and it cannot direct regularisation of services.
A single judge bench of Justice S.G. Pandit allowed the petition filed by the Executive Director-cum-Appointing Authority of Karnataka Residential Educational Institutions Society and set aside the 2016 order of the Commission directing regularisation of service of Jyothi Mallappa Savanalli as Principal of Morarji Desai Residential School Arakeri.
Single Application For Injunction Against Alienating, Mortgaging Or Changing Nature Of Suit Land Not Barred By Civil Practice Rules: Karnataka HC
Case Title: ALLABAKSH v. IMAM HUSSAIN
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 109761 OF 2016
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 441
The Karnataka High Court has said that prayers seeking for injunction, restraining the defendant from transferring, alienating, mortgaging, creating gift or any right in changing nature of the suit land, would not amount to distinct prayers and are related to each other and filing of a single application seeking for such reliefs would not be in violation or come within a mischief under Rule 23 of the Civil Rules of Practice, 1967.
A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj sitting at Dharwad allowed the petition filed by one Allabaksh and set aside the order passed by trial court and appellate court by which the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC was dismissed.
[JJRules] School Certificate Prevails Over Doctor’s Opinion About Minor Rape Victim’s Age: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: The State through Grameen Police Station v. Sharanu @ Sharanappa @ Sharanabasappa.
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL No.200058/2014
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 442
The Karnataka High Court has said that while determining the age of a minor rape victim, the certificate issued by the school authorities stands on a higher footing than the medical opinion of a doctor.
To determine the age of a victim, suspected to be a minor, Rule 12(3) of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 applies. A division bench of Justices Dr H B Prabhakara Sastry and Anil B Katti observed that it is only in the absence of the matriculation or equivalent certificates or the date of birth certificate from the School or a birth certificate given by a Corporation or a Municipal authority or a panchayat, that the medical opinion would be sought from a duly constituted Medical Board, which will declare the age of the juvenile or the child.
Subscribe to Live Law now and get unlimited access.
Already have an account? Sign In

source

Leave a Comment