Karnataka High Court Weekly Round Up: September 12 To September 18, 2022

Nominal Index: DR. (SMT.) ANITHA PATIL And STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 357SAYYED SOHEL TORVI v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 358AMRUTHESH N.P v. THE CHIEF SECRETARY. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 359VIJAYKUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 360SANDEEP REDDY v State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 361KRISHNAPPA v ASHWATHAMMA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 362SOMASHEKAR SHANKARAPPA HURUKADLI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw 363M/S NAMBOOR JEWELLERS v. STATE BY LASHKAR POLICE STATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 364Jaganmayi Builders and Developers Private Limited & Ors. versus Sumanth Reddy & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 365Judgments/Orders Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Doctor Accused Of Forcefully Performing Sex Change Operation On MinorCase Title: DR. (SMT.) ANITHA PATIL And STATE OF KARNATAKACase NO: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8213 OF 2019Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 357The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash the FIR and chargesheet filed against a doctor under POCSO Act for allegedly conducting a forcible sex change operation on a minor boy, after kidnapping him.The bench said, "The petitioner in the present matter is a Doctor, who is alleged to have conducted the sex change operation, and the other offences have not been alleged against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner though has contended that the petitioner has not performed the operation, I am of the considered opinion that this cannot be a matter which can be decided in a proceeding under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. that is a matter which is required to be left for trial."Special Court Empowered To Try General IPC Offences Arising Out Of Case Probed By NIA: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: SAYYED SOHEL TORVI v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCYCase No: WRIT PETITION No.19019 of 2021Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 358The Karnataka High Court has held that the Special NIA Court is empowered to conduct trial for general offences punishable under Indian Penal Code if the FIR emanates from the very same transaction being probed by the NIA.A single judge bench of Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by Sayyed Sohel Torvi an accused in the Bengaluru riots case of 2020, questioning the order of the special court dated September 30, 2021 by which his application made under section 20 r/w Section 8 of the NIA Act for transfer of his case to the Court having jurisdiction to try IPC offences was rejected.Graphite India 'Absolute Owner' Of Closed Bengaluru Plant, Can't Revert Land To State Govt: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: AMRUTHESH N.P v. THE CHIEF SECRETARYCase No: W.P.No.7039/2021Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 359The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a public interest litigation seeking directions to the State to reacquire the land allotted to M/s Graphite India Ltd., which had to close down its operations after several complaints were made by the residents of the locality with regard to the pollution caused by its functioning.A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice S Vishwajith Shetty dismissed the petition filed by one Amruthesh NP seeking to revert the land allotted to Graphite India to the State government, for use either by upcoming entrepreneurs or as a lung space of the locality.Accused Can't Ordinarily Move Quashing Plea If Sessions Court Granted Pre-Arrest Bail On Condition To Cooperate In Criminal Investigation: Karnataka HCCase Title: VIJAYKUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKACase No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3163 OF 2021 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4322 OF 2021Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 360The Karnataka High Court has said that an accused who has secured anticipatory bail orders at the hands of jurisdictional Sessions Judge, wherein a condition is stipulated for the accused to cooperate in the investigation process, cannot readily approach the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.A single judge bench of Justice Krishna S Dixit while dismissing two petitions filed by Vijaykumar and Abubekar said, "Petitioners have secured anticipatory bail orders at the hands of jurisdictional Sessions Judge wherein a condition is stipulated for the accused to cooperate in the investigation process. That being the position, petitioners cannot readily come before this Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. It is for the Investigating Agency to look into the matter and take a call as to its investigation worthiness."Mere Pendency Of One More Case Against Accused Itself Can't Be Treated As Criminal Antecedent To Deny Bail: Karnataka High CourtCase Title: SANDEEP REDDY v State of KarnatakaCase No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5740 OF 2022Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 361The Karnataka High Court has observed that mere pendency of one more case against the petitioner-accused itself cannot be treated as a criminal antecedent so as to deny him bail.A single judge bench of Justice V Srishananda allowed the petition filed by one Sandeep Reddy and granted him bail. Reddy has been...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round Up: September 12 To September 18, 2022

Mustafa Plumber

Tags