Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 04 to August 10, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 258 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 264Nominal Index: Murali Krishna R AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 258State of Karnataka & ANR AND Mahaboob Patel. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 259Vijayeendra G Muddebihalkar & Others AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 260Vijay Mahantesh Mathapati & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 261Ms. Sumita Abhishek Sundaram v. Sankalpan Infrastructure Private Limited. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 262Sivagami N AND M/s Vinayaka Travels & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 263Santosh Yamanappa Wadakar AND State of Karnataka & Others 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 264Judgments/OrdersKarnataka High Court Quashes Corruption Case Against Driver Who Kept Bribe Bag In Car On BESCOM Manager's InstructionsCase Title: Murali Krishna R AND State of KarnatakaCase No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.204 OF 2024Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 258The Karnataka High Court has quashed the corruption case registered against a driver attached to the Chief General Manager of BESCOM, for merely keeping a bag containing bribe in the Manager's car on his instruction.Noting that the demand and acceptance of bribe were made by the Manager who was booked as the first accused, Justice M Nagaprasanna held it is unfair to prosecute the "humble contract employee" who was just 40 days into service and was merely following instructions.Compassionate Appointment Applications Must Be Decided Within 90-Days: Karnataka High Court Issues DirectionsCase Title: State of Karnataka & ANR AND Mahaboob PatelCase No: WRIT PETITION NO.202187 OF 2023.Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 259The Karnataka High Court has directed authorities concerned to decide applications received for Compassionate Appointment within a maximum period of 90 days, from date of receipt of the application.A division bench of Justice Mohammad Nawaz And Justice K S Hemalekha said, “Compassionate appointment matters being a welfare measure designed to provide immediate financial relief to bereaved families, the State bears a high duty of procedural fairness."Karnataka High Court Asks Centre To Check If Regulations Are Needed To Curb 'Profile Funding' ScamCase Title: Vijayeendra G Muddebihalkar & Others AND Union of India & Others.Case No: WP 23590/2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 260The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (August 5) asked the Union Ministry of Finance to take note of the petitions filed by persons claiming to be victims of 'Profile Funding' and see whether regulations are to be put in place.For context, profile funding is an alleged scam wherein victims are purportedly promised by scammers that the victims' bank account will be funded based on the their profile, in lieu of personal and financial details. Victims are allegedly told that their profiles will be used for applying for loans.Justice B M Shyam Prasad while dictating his order said “This court must also state that petitions of this nature are too frequent to be ignored and the Secretary of Ministry of Finance, Union of India must take note of the same, to see whether regulations must be put in place.”Karnataka High Court Strikes Down State Rule Enabling Direct Private Complaints To Sessions Court, Says It May Lead To Double JeopardyCase title: Vijay Mahantesh Mathapati & Others AND State of Karnataka & ANRCase No: WRIT PETITION NO. 200873 OF 2024Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 261The Karnataka High Court has struck down Rule 6 of Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules 2006, wherein a victim can directly approach a sessions court in a private complaint instead of Commission conducting an inquiry, holding it to be unconstitutional and inconsistent with the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993.For context, Rule 6 states that a victim of an offence arising out of violation of human rights, his legal representative, or a registered NGO or a public person may file a complaint against a public servant who has committed or abetted the commission of such an offence. The Court on receipt of such a complaint, shall either order an investigation into the offence or it may proceed to conduct its own inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the procedure for dealing with private complaints in CrPC.A court has been defined in the rules to mean a Court of Sessions designated as Human Rights Court by the State Government with the concurrence of Chief Justice of the High Court to try an offence of violation of human rights.Justice S Rachaiah in his order said: “The striking down of Rule 6 of the Karnataka State Human Rights Courts Rules, 2006 is justified in law and principle for the reason that, the Rule impermissibly expands the scope of Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 by enabling the private party or victim to file a complaint directly by invoking the jurisdiction of the Court established under Section 30 of the Act, by bypassing the provisions of the Act. This would lead to not only disrupting the legislative intent and scheme, but also invading the Central Act.”Seat ...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: August 04 to August 10, 2025

Mustafa Plumber

Tags