Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
News Updates

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

Mustafa Plumber
19 Sep 2022 6:45 AM GMT
Karnataka High Court Weekly Round Up: September 12 To September 18, 2022
x

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)...

Nominal Index:

DR. (SMT.) ANITHA PATIL And STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 357

SAYYED SOHEL TORVI v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 358

AMRUTHESH N.P v. THE CHIEF SECRETARY. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 359

VIJAYKUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 360

SANDEEP REDDY v State of Karnataka. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 361

KRISHNAPPA v ASHWATHAMMA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 362

SOMASHEKAR SHANKARAPPA HURUKADLI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw 363

M/S NAMBOOR JEWELLERS v. STATE BY LASHKAR POLICE STATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 364

Jaganmayi Builders and Developers Private Limited & Ors. versus Sumanth Reddy & Ors. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 365

Judgments/Orders

 Karnataka High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Doctor Accused Of Forcefully Performing Sex Change Operation On Minor

Case Title: DR. (SMT.) ANITHA PATIL And STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case NO: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8213 OF 2019

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 357

The 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 Court

Case Title: SAYYED SOHEL TORVI v. NATIONAL INVESTIGATING AGENCY

Case No: WRIT PETITION No.19019 of 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 358

The 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 Court

Case Title: AMRUTHESH N.P v. THE CHIEF SECRETARY

Case No: W.P.No.7039/2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 359

The 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 HC

Case Title: VIJAYKUMAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3163 OF 2021 C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO.4322 OF 2021

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 360

The 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 Court

Case Title: SANDEEP REDDY v State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.5740 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 361

The 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 charged for the offence punishable under Section 395 of IPC (Punishment for dacoity). He had approached the court seeking bail on the ground of parity, stating that co-accused in the case have been granted bail.

Unregistered Family Settlement Admissible In Evidence Only If Agreement Is Confirmed With Approval Of All Family Members: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: KRISHNAPPA v ASHWATHAMMA

Case No: R.S.A.NO.87 OF 2010

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 362

The Karnataka High Court has held that a family settlement arrived at between parties to share immovable properties has to be among all the family members who agree to common terms and conditions and an agreement in writing between two parties to the suit arrived before the panchayat is not acceptable, unless it is a registered document.

The bench said, "Family settlement involves participation and the same needs to be signed by all the members and there has to be an acknowledgment when the agreement is arrived at, free of duress and coercion within the family members. A family settlement is admissible in evidence provided that the agreement is confirmed with approval of all family members who firmly support resolution given in the agreement at a later date which does not require registration."

Karnataka High Court Directs Haveri Deputy Commissioner To Act Against Alleged Illegal Slaughter Houses

Case Title: SOMASHEKAR SHANKARAPPA HURUKADLI v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Case No: WP No 1646/2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw 363

The Karnataka High Court has directed the Deputy Commissioner of Haveri district to expeditiously take action on the representation made to it about alleged illegal slaughter houses being operational in the district without any license.

S.451 CrPC: Karnataka High Court Says Gold Ornaments Seized Can Be Kept In Custody For Maximum 1 Month

Case Title: M/S NAMBOOR JEWELLERS v. STATE BY LASHKAR POLICE STATION

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7105 OF 2022

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 364

The Karnataka High Court has said that if gold bullion or gold ornaments are seized during the investigation of an offence, the maximum period that it could be held is 15 days or one month and later, it should be released and interim custody should be handed over to the victim/complainant/applicant.

Arbitration Clause, Effect Of Novation; Can't Be Decided Under Section 11 Of A&C Act: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Jaganmayi Builders and Developers Private Limited & Ors. versus Sumanth Reddy & Ors.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 365

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that the issue whether an agreement containing an arbitration clause stood novated with the execution of a second agreement and thus, the arbitration agreement between the parties was not subsisting, cannot be decided at the stage of reference to arbitration under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (A&C Act), since it involves a detailed enquiry which must be decided by the Arbitrator himself under Section 16 of the A&C Act.

Next Story