Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 31 - November 6, 2022

Nominal Index: [Citations 432 - 442] Farddin v. State and another. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 432 PRATHAP KUMAR.G v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 433 NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. ALWIN LOBO. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 434 SAFWAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 435 MOHAMMAD WASEEM AHAMAD & Others v. 1 STATE BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 436 MANJULA.N v. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE BANGALORE CITY POLICE. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 437 XYZ v. ABC. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 438 VEENASHRI v. SHANKAR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 439 THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-CUMAPPOINTING AUTHORITY KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS SOCIETY v. THE KARNATAKA STATE SCHEDULED CASTES/SCHEDULED TRIBES COMMISSION & ANR. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 440 ALLABAKSH v. IMAM HUSSAIN. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 441 The State through Grameen Police Station v. Sharanu @ Sharanappa @ Sharanabasappa. 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 442 Judgment/Orders "Can't Seek Bail Under The Guise Of Personal Law": Karnataka HC Denies Relief To Man Accused Of Raping Minor Muslim Girl Case title - Farddin v. State and another Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 432 The Karnataka High Court recently denied bail to a man who allegedly raped a 16-year-old Muslim girl as it noted that even if the girl had consented to a physical relationship, her consent becomes irrelevant as she is a minor. The bench of Justice Rajendra Badamikar observed thus as it rejected the argument put forth by the counsel for the accused that the age of puberty was required to be taken note of as the parties are Mohammedans. Road Accidents Involving Injury To Animals Do Not Attract 'Rash Driving' Offences U/S 279 IPC, S.134 & 187 MV Act: Karnataka High Court Case Title: PRATHAP KUMAR.G v. STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1133 OF 2019 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 433 The Karnataka High Court has held that Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code which pertains to rash driving would not be attracted in cases of accident involving a pet dog/ animals. A single judge bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj further held that such accidents would also not attract liability under Sections 134 and 187 of the Motor Vehicles Act which pertain to 'Duty of driver in case of accident and injury to a person' and 'Punishment for offences relating to accident' respectively. Order41 Rule 33 CPC: Karnataka High Court Enhances Motor Accident Compensation Payable To Injured In Appeal By Insurance Company Case Title: NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD v. ALWIN LOBO Case No: M.F.A.NO.8449/2015 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 434 The Karnataka High Court has said that in an appeal against compensation filed by an Insurance Company in a Motor Accident case, the appellate court can invoke Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC to enhance compensation, if injustice is caused to the victim or deceased due to compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. Order 41 Rule 33 of CPC deals with the power of the Court of Appeal to pass an appropriate order in a case regardless of the fact that the appeal is only with respect to a part of the decree or that the appeal is filed only by some of the parties. In other words, the Appellate Court can pass an order as it deems it fit regardless of the scope of the appeal. Protest Against SC's Ayodhya-Babri Masjid Decision Promotes Religious Enmity: Karnataka High Court In Alleged PFI Activist's Case Case Title: SAFWAN v. STATE OF KARNATAKA Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.513 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 435 The Karnataka High Court has observed that protesting against Supreme Court's decision in Ayodhya-Babri Masjid case delivered in the year 2019, is nothing but promoting enmity between two groups on the ground of religion. However, the court allowed the petition filed by an alleged member of the Campus Front of India (which is also a part of the PFI), and quashed the criminal proceedings against him as the prosecution failed to obtain prior sanction from the state government for taking cognizance of offence under Section 153(A) . Karnataka High Court Quashes POCSO Case Against Muslim Man For Impregnating Minor Wife Case Title: MOHAMMAD WASEEM AHAMAD & Others v. 1 STATE BY CHANDRA LAYOUT POLICE STATION. Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5917 OF 2022 Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Kar) 436 The Karnataka High Court has quashed the POCSO case registered against a Muslim man for impregnating his minor wife. The matter was put to rest after a settlement between the accused and the victim, who was married to him as per the Mohammedan Law. The order was passed by Justice K.Natarajan on 10th October, two days before another single bench of the High Court declared that POCSO Act overrides personal law and thus, the age for involving in sexual activities is 18 years. Contract Between Two Persons Allowing The Other To Seek Compassionate Appointment Not Binding On...

Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 31 - November 6, 2022

Mustafa Plumber

Tags