Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: April 28 - May 04, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 154 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 163Nominal Index: Hemanth Datta @Hemantha AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 154Prof Govindan Rangarajan & Others AND Dr D Sanna Durgappa & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 155Newspace Research And Technologies Private Limited AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 156Puttanagowda AND Kubergouda. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 157Dr Madhukar G Anagur AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 158M MOSER DESIGN ASSOCIATES INDIA PVT LTD AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 159NEIL PATEL DIGITAL LLC Vs. PRADEEP KUMAR RAJARATHINAM. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 160X & others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 161Kanaka Lakshmi B M AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 162SRI C T RAVI v/s STATE BY BAGEWADI P S AND OTHERS. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 163Judgments/OrdersNon-Supply Of Grounds Of Arrest In Writing Enough To Challenge Arrests Effected Before SC's Order In Prabir Purkayastha's Case: Karnataka HCThe Karnataka High Court has held that non-service of grounds of arrest in writing with respect to any alleged offence even on a non-habitual offender shall be adequate grounds to contest the lawfulness of any arrest effected, even prior to the pronouncement of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Prabir Purkayastha.For context the Supreme Court in Prabir Purkayastha's case postulated that an arrest in terms of Article 22(1) of the Constitution must be followed by communication of grounds of arrest, in writing, as soon as may be, to enable an effective challenge to the fetters imposed on his natural right to liberty.Karnataka HC Quashes SC/ST Act Case Against Infosys Co-Founder For Role In Alleged Discrimination, Wrongful Removal Of Ex-IISc ProfessorCase Title: Prof Govindan Rangarajan & Others AND Dr D Sanna Durgappa & ANRCase No: WP 2550/2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 155The Karnataka High Court has quashed proceedings initiated under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, against Infosys co-founder S Krish Gopalakrishnan and 15 others, who are members of the Indian Institute of Science (IISc) following allegations by a former professor D. Sanna Durgappa, of wrongful dismissal from service and caste-based discrimination.Justice Hemant Chandangoudar allowing the petition filed by the accused said “On perusal of the complaint, it is clear that the allegations made against the petitioners do not constitute offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.”Karnataka HC Directs State To Operate Cyber Command Centres To Combat Cyber Crimes, Says It Would Usher New Beginnings To Tackle New Age CrimeCase Title: Newspace Research And Technologies Private Limited AND State of Karnataka & OthersCase No: WRIT PETITION No.8403 OF 2025Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 156The Karnataka High Court has asked the State Government to make operation cyber command centres, by appointing appropriate officers manning such centres in order to tackle the emergence and growth of cyber crime.A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna said “If a cyber command centre is established to combat cyber crimes and strengthen cyber security, it would usher a new beginning of tackling the new age crime with new age investigating centres. This is the paradigm shift that is imperative.”It added “It is only then the State will leap forward to tackle the emergence and growth of cyber crime, failing which, the citizen who has been a victim of cyber crime or cyber frauds will never get justice. Therefore, the State shall endeavour to give life to the cyber command centres or constitute a separate wing to tackle cyber crime like the CCB, which could be a cyber crime investigation bureau.”Section 219 CrPC Doesn't Mandate Common Trial Of Two Separate Cheque Dishonour Complaints Merely Because Accused Is Same: Karnataka HCCase Title: Puttanagowda AND KubergoudaCase No:CRIMINAL PETITION NO.102651 OF 2023Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 157The Karnataka High Court has said that Section 219 of Criminal Procedure Code does not mandate that two cases of cheque bouncing, being prosecuted by two different complainants arising from separate causes of action, can be tried together only for the sole reason that the accused person is the same.Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar held thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Puttanagouda who had challenged a trial court order which rejected his application for a single trial of the two cases registered under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against him. According to the petitioner, the alleged offences in the two cases were committed within a span of one year.Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Ex-Chancellor Of Alliance University Over Alleged Misuse Of Domain NameCase Title: Dr Madhukar G Anagur AND State of Karnataka & ANRCase No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.11024 OF 2023.Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 158The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case registered under...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: April 28 - May 04, 2025

Mustafa Plumber

Tags