Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: January 24 To January 30, 2022

1: Breaching Promise To Marry Will Not Amount To Offence Of Cheating Under IPC : Karnataka High Court Case Title: Venkatesh And State of Karnataka Case No: Criminal Petition No 5865/2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 25 The Karnataka High Court while quashing the FIR registered against a man and his family has reiterated that not abiding with the promise of marriage will not amount to the offence of cheating under section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. A single-judge bench of Justice K Natarajan while allowing the petition filed by Venkatesh and others said "Absolutely there is no ingredient stated by her in order to show that there is a criminal intention of cheating by petitioner No.1 and thereby, he has promised to marry her but has broken his promise." 2: Child's Educational Prospects Should Not Be Affected By Estrangement Between Parents: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Amrusha Das v. State Of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.19057 of 2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 26 The Karnataka High Court has said that estrangement between a couple should not affect their child's education prospects. Justice Krishna S Dixit thus allowed the petition filed by a mother and her 8-year old daughter, seeking directions to a school in Bengaluru to issue her Transfer certificate. 3: Further Investigation U/s 173(8) CrPC Must Always Relate To Incidents Of Crime For Which Charge Sheet Is Filed: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Virendra Khanna v. State of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition No.1983 of 2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 27 The Karnataka High Court has said that further investigation conducted under Section 173(8) of CrPC must always relate to the incident of alleged crime in respect of which the charge sheet has been filed already. It is not reinvestigation. Justice Sreenivas Harish Kumar while quashing two cases registered under the NDPS Act, against party organiser Virendra Khanna said, "Further investigation is always in accordance with Section 173(8) of Cr.P.C,with a view to collecting further evidence supplemental to the evidence already on record. It is not reinvestigation." 4: Father Can't File Habeas Corpus Petition To Seek Child's Custody From Mother: Karnataka High Court Imposes 50K Cost Case Title: Gaurav Raj Jain V. State Of Karnataka Case No: Writ Petition (HC) No.109/2021 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 28 Observing that "Litigants and members of the Bar appear to have not understood the importance and seriousness of this extraordinary writ of Habeas Corpus," the Karnataka High Court recently dismissed a petition filed by a father seeking directions to produce his 2 year old girl before the court, who is in safe custody of her mother. A division bench of Justice B Veerappa and Justice M G Uma while dismissing the petition filed by Gaurav Raj Jain, imposed a cost of Rs 50,000 on him, stating that no ground to allow the writ petition is made out and (petitioner) has abused the judicial process. The amount is payable within a month to the Police Welfare Fund. 5: Motor Accident| Courts Can Award Compensation Higher Than What Is Claimed: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Basavaraj v. Umesh Case No: M.F.A. No.103473/2017 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 29 Coming to the aid of a 14-year old (at the time) who suffered permanent disability to his pelvic region in an accident, the Karnataka High Court recently modified the order of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, awarding compensation of Rs 50,000 under the head loss of amenities and enjoyment in life and increased it to Rs 10 lakhs. A division bench of Justice S.G. Pandit and Justice Anant Ramanath Hegde said, "Since the marriage prospect of the claimant is wiped out, the claimant is deprived of all the pleasure and benefits of married life. The mental trauma of having to remain single, and answering the curious questions posed by the people around throughout life, for not getting married, are some of the things not easy to cope with. The trauma is going to be perennial and unabated." 6: Mere Pasting Of Circular For Interest Rate Reduction By Bank On Its Notice Board Does Not Mean It Is Communicated To Customers: Karnataka High Court Case Title: Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) v. Shekar B S Case No: WA 12/2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 30 The Karnataka High Court on Thursday dismissed an appeal filed by Canara Bank (E-Syndicate Bank) challenging an order of the Single judge by which it was directed to grant benefit of reduction of interest rate on Home loan to a customer from the date of issuance of the circular for reduction, instead of when the customer applied for seeking reduction. A division bench of Chief Justice Ritu Raj Awasthi and Justice Suraj Govindaraj was informed by the bank that the circular dated June 30, 2010 was pasted on the notice board of the bank and as such there was due communication to the customers of the bank. 7:...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Roundup: January 24 To January 30, 2022

Mustafa Plumber

Tags