Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 161 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 193Nominal Index: X & 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) 163handrashekhar AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 164High Court Of Karnataka AND The Union of...
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 161 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 193
Nominal Index:
X & others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 161
Kanaka Lakshmi B M AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 162
SRI C T RAVI v/s STATE BY BAGEWADI P S AND OTHERS. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 163
handrashekhar AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 164
High Court Of Karnataka AND The Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 165
Mohamed Ikbal AND Secretary to Government of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 166
CV Rajanna & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 167
ABC AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 168
Raviraja Rai M And State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 169
Rishi Kumar AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 170
D S Veeraiah AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 171
Ashok AND Fayaz Aahmad. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 172
Anil Kumar S B AND Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 173
Arbaz Khan AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 174
PhonePe Private Limited AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 175
Sandya Anil Kumar AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 176
Rekha Kannan & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 177
Keerthi Harmony Apartment Owners Association AND M/S KEERTHI ESTATES PVT. LTD & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 178
N. H. Gowda Versus Mr. Rangarama And Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 179
Shrishail Irappa Kempwad & ANR And State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 180
Savinaya AND Mrs Sheela G Bhat & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 181
Karnataka State Private Management Association of Health Institutions AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 182
Addanada Karriappa And Philiphose Mathew. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 183
Athaulla Jokatte & AND And State Of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 184
Anumandala Rajesh Reddy AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 185
B R Anand AND V R Gisha. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 186
Somarapu Vamashi AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 187
Girish Bharadwaj AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 188
Ramesh Naik L AND State of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 189
Vidya M V AND Bhavana S. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 190
Rait Sena Karnataka AND Union of India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 191
Naveen Kumar N & Others AND M/S Karnataka Power Corporation Limited & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 192
Shashank J Rai AND National Anti Doping Agency-India & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 193
Judgments/Orders
Case Title: X & others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.6965 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 161
While quashing an FIR registered on the complaint of a woman under POCSO Act against her brothers, the Karnataka High Court noted that the siblings were fighting over property and it was in this light the crime was registered as a counter-blast which cannot be accepted.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition and quashed the prosecution initiated against the petitioners under Sections 8(Punishment for sexual assault) and 12(Punishment for sexual harassment) POCSO Act and Sections 354(Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty), 506(criminal intimidation) and 34(common intention) of the IPC.
Case Title: Kanaka Lakshmi B M AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4873 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 162
The Karnataka High Court recently granted bail to Deputy Superintendent of Police Kanaka Lakshmi B M, who is accused of abetting the suicide of an advocate Jeeva S.
Justice S Vishwajith Shetty allowed the petition filed by the police officer who is booked under sections 7(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 108 of BNS, 2023.
"SPP has fairly brought to the notice of this Court that investigation of the case is already completed and draft charge sheet is prepared and submitted before this Court in compliance of the order passed in Crl.P.No.12695/2024. He also has submitted that State Government has also granted sanction as provided under Section 218 of BNSS, 2023, to prosecute the petitioner and therefore, charge sheet will be filed before the jurisdictional Court forthwith. The maximum punishment for the alleged offence is imprisonment for a period of ten years. Since the petitioner is a Government Servant there cannot be any apprehension that she is likely to flee away from justice," it noted.
Case title: SRI C T RAVI v/s STATE BY BAGEWADI P S AND OTHERS
Case No: CRL.P 791/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 163
The Karnataka High Court on Friday (May 2) refused to quash a case registered against BJP Legislator CT Ravi booked for allegedly using derogatory words against Congress Legislator Laxmi Hebbalkar inside State Council at Belagavi.
Dismissing Ravi's plea, Justice M Nagaprasanna while pronouncing the order said, "Alleged word spoken, if spoken or gesture made if made against the women, the complainant, certainly outrages her modesty and it above all cannot have any nexus to the functioning of the house or relation to the transaction of the house, no nexus no privilege, petition dismissed.”
Ravi was arrested on December 19, 2024 under Section 75 and 79 of the BNS, after he moved the High Court questioning his arrest he was directed to be forthwith released on bail. Following which he has moved the court seeking to quash the offence. .
Case title: SRI C T RAVI v/s STATE BY BAGEWADI P S AND OTHERS
Case No: CRL.P 791/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 163
The Karnataka High Court has held that criminal acts inside the Legislative House are not immune from prosecution and there is no absolute immunity that Legislators can claim.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while refusing to quash a case for outraging the modesty of a woman, registered against BJP Legislator CT Ravi booked for allegedly using derogatory words against Congress Legislator Laxmi Hebbalkar inside the State Council at Belagavi.
It said “Spoken word in the Legislature by the Legislators would ordinarily come within the immunity under Article 194(2) of the Constitution of India, but not in certain exceptional circumstances. Judicial review is permissible even in cases where the parliamentary privilege is projected, but not in all circumstances, only on a case to case basis.”
Case Title: Chandrashekhar AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.11138 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 164
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a case registered against a 67-year-old man living in Jayanagar area of Bengaluru who was accused of cultivating 5 to 6 cannabis plants in the backyard of his property.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Chandrashekar, and quashed the case registered against him under Sections 20(a) and 20(b)(ii)(c) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The court said “The prosecution has not placed an iota of evidence to demonstrate that the petitioner was cultivating ganja and the quantity of ganja found from the backyard of the petitioner was admittedly weighed along with the entire plants that were uprooted without segregation.”
Case Title: High Court Of Karnataka AND The Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 16219 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 165
The Karnataka High Court has directed Central and State forest authorities to commit themselves to conserve and preserve the "animal-asset" elephant, by taking steps to minimize, avoid and obliterate the risk of elephants succumbing to death by electrocution.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice M I Arun directed thus while disposing of a suo-motu petition initiated last year, based on a newspaper report pointing to the repeated incidents of elephant deaths due to electrocution or other unnatural reasons.
Case Title: Mohamed Ikbal AND Secretary to Government of Karnataka
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.23615 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 166
The Karnataka High Court has said that parties-in-person who are not able to plead properly in their petition and draft their pleadings should not be granted the certification by the Registry to argue in the court in-person.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind observed thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Mohamed Ikbal.
The petitioner-party-in-person is an advocate, claimed to be a social worker and administrator of Masjid and Khabrastan at Rudrapatna, Arkalgud Taluka, Hassan District. He had approached the court seeking a direction to the authorities to undertake proper survey of a land which he claimed to be Muslim burial ground.
Case Title: CV Rajanna & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.28822 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 167
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to grant cash awards to physically challenged athletes who participated and won medals at the 7th World Dwarf Games conducted in August 2017.
Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by C V Rajanna and others and directed, “Respondents to grant cash awards to the petitioners as claimed by them in terms of Government Order dated 30-11-2013. This order shall be complied within a period of eight weeks.”
Case Title: ABC AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WP 13182/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 168
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (May 8) dismissed a petition filed by three minor children who are Pakistani Nationals, seeking to restrain the authorities from taking any coercive action against them until May 15, the date by which they are expected to leave India.
A vacation bench of Justice M G Uma said “The Undersecretary to Government of India passed the order dated 25-04-2025 regarding revocation of visa of Pakistani National. Therefore the Union of India, through the Cabinet Committee on Security has taken a conscious decision to safeguard interest of citizens in India. In such circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the same, to pass a favourable order in favour of the petitioners. Hence petition stands dismissed.”
Case Title: Raviraja Rai M And State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 2579/2014
Citation No 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 169
The Karnataka High Court has held that under the State Forest Act there is a presumption that a forest produce belongs to a State government and the burden on rebutting the presumption lies on the accused booked for offences under the Act such as illegally transporting such produce.
For context, Section 80 (Presumption that forest produce belongs to Government) when in any proceedings taken under this Act or in consequence of anything done under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force, a question arises as to whether any forest produce is the property of the State Government, such produce shall be presumed to be the property of the State Government until the contrary is proved, and in case of any prosecution the burden of proving the contrary shall lie on the accused.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Raviraja Rai M who had challenged the order of the session court upholding order of the authorities confiscating his pick up vehicle which was used for transporting wooden logs without permit.
Case Title: Rishi Kumar AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.25044 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 170
The Karnataka High Court has rejected the petition filed by a Railway Job Aspirant who was not appointed to the post of Assistant Loco Pilot (ALP) as he was found to be stuttering speech by the Railway Recruitment Board which termed it as a speech disorder.
A division bench of Justice V Kameshwar Rao and Justice T M Nadaf dismissed the petition filed by one Rishi Kumar against an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) rejecting his application seeking to quash the order passed by the Railway Recruitment Board (RRB) on the ground that the candidate suffered from speech disorder.
Case Title: D S Veeraiah AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION No. 31828 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 171
The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against former Member of Legislative Council (MLC) D S Veeraiah, who was accused of misappropriation of Rs 47.1 crore from the D Devaraj Urs Truck Terminal Limited (DDUTLL), a state government entity, during his period as its Chairman in 2021.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna quashed the case registered against him initially under Sections 120B, 409, 420, 465, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and while filing chargesheet the police had included offences under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The court said “The prosecution has devised a method of projecting only offences under Section 409 and 420 of the IPC which are clearly identical to Section 13 of the PC Act, to get away with the rigour of prior approval under Section 17A of the PC Act.”
Case Title: Ashok AND Fayaz Aahmad
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.101514 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 172
The Karnataka HIgh Court has said that the procedure of hearing the accused at the stage of taking cognizance of the complaint as prescribed in the first proviso to Section 223 of BNSS shall not apply to the complaints for offence made under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.
For context, Section 223 of BNSS makes a departure from the earlier provision contained in Section 200 Cr.P.C. Under the proviso to Sub-Section (1) of 223, the Magistrate cannot take cognizance of an offence, without giving the accused an opportunity of being heard.
A single judge, Justice Shivashankar Amarannavar held thus while dismissing a petition filed by one Ashok who had approached the court questioning the cognizance order taken by the Magistrate court on the complaint filed by one Fayaz Aahmad without issuing him a notice for hearing.
Case Title: Anil Kumar S B AND Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited & ANR
Case No: WRIT APPEAL No.1673 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 173
The Karnataka High Court has said that the assessment of the suitability of a candidate who is suffering from physical disability must not be based solely on the medical certificate, but also on the functional assessment of the candidate.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind held thus while allowing an appeal filed by Anil Kumar S B who had challenged a single judge order and held him eligible for the post of Assistant Accounts Officer under the reservation for persons with disabilities in Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd (BESCOM).
The court said, “What requires consideration, in this context, is the functional assessment. In determining the suitability or eligibility of a candidate with a disability, the functional assessment, beyond just the medical evaluation, is crucial. Annexure-A, the Disability Certificate, clearly records that the appellant can perform normal work with both hands, albeit subject to certain restrictions.”
Case Title: Arbaz Khan AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101267 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 174
The Karnataka High Court recently suggested the State government and its law enforcement agencies to legislate necessary legal provisions and take stringent measures to suppress the perilous activity of "wheeling" by two wheeler riders.
A single judge, Justice V Srishananda said, “Legislature has to take into consideration that existing statutory provisions relating to reckless and negligent driving is hardly sufficient to curb the menace and therefore, to fill up the legislative vacuum, suitable and stringent provisions are to be incorporated by amending the Indian Penal Code and Motor Vehicles Act to complement each other.”
Case Title: PhonePe Private Limited AND State of Karnataka & ANR
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.3757 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 175
The Karnataka High Court has dismissed a petition filed by digital payment intermediary 'Phonepe', challenging a police notice seeking transaction details/ full account credentials of its registered users and merchants, while investigating a criminal case.
In doing so, Justice M Nagaprasanna said, “The duty to protect data must yield, where public interest and criminal investigation intersect. The protection of consumer privacy cannot eclipse the lawful imperative of investigating officers to secure evidence and take the investigation to its logical conclusion. 'Confidentiality must coexist with accountability'".
The company had challenged a Section 91 CrPC notice, which empowers a Court or an officer in charge of a police station to issue a summons or a written order for the production of any document or other thing.
Case Title: Sandya Anil Kumar AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 10453 OF 2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 176
The Karnataka High Court has appointed a wife as a guardian to her husband Dr. Anil Kumar H.V, and permitted her to operate Dr Kumar's bank accounts as if he is operating the account, as he is suffering from a neurological disorder and for nine months is in a comatose state.
A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna allowed the petition filed by Sandya Anil Kumar and said “In the light of the condition of the husband of the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to permit the petitioner, the wife of Dr. Anil Kumar H.V, to operate the account, as if the husband was operating the account.”
He added “The petitioner is appointed, as a guardian to her husband Dr. Anil Kumar H.V. and a direction issues to respondents No.2 to 4 - Banks to allow the petitioner to draw money for day-to-day treatment of her husband and for the livelihood of the family. Respondents No.2 to 4 (State Bank of India/Indian Overseas Bank) shall not brook any delay and shall permit normal operation of the account at the hands of the petitioner, wife of Dr. Anil Kumar H.V.”
Case Title: Rekha Kannan & Others AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.27821 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 177
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the association of the owners of flats situated in an Apartment, consisting of residential units only, is to be registered under the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act (KAO) and not under the provisions of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act (KCS).
A single judge, Justice K S Hemalekha, observed thus while allowing a petition filed by owners of the apartment units in “Ramky One North” a residential complex situated at Avalahalli Village, Yelahanka Taluk.
The court set aside the order passed by the Deputy Registrar registering the Society under the KCS Act dated 19.10.2023 and directed Respondent No.5-Builder to comply with all the requirements under the law and form an Association of Apartment Owners under the KAO Act and the members of respondent No.4 Society to cooperate in forming an Association for the project known as “Ramky North”.
Case Title: Keerthi Harmony Apartment Owners Association AND M/S KEERTHI ESTATES PVT. LTD & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 19151 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 178
The Karnataka High Court recently said that land owners cannot retain any portion of land once the sale deeds were executed in respect of the entire area for the purpose of the construction of an apartment complex.
A Single judge, Justice N S Sanjay Gowda, allowed the petition filed by Keerthi Harmony Apartment Owners Association, and set aside the licence granted by Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) to developer Hanumantha Reddy for constructing an apartment complex.
It said “The grant of approval by the BBMP to build a new apartment complex would be wholly illegal and as such, Annexures 'A' and 'B' are accordingly quashed.”
Case Title: N. H. Gowda Versus Mr. Rangarama And Ors.
Case Number: 2025:KHC:15329-DB
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 179
The Karnataka High Court bench of Chief Justice N. V. Anjaria and Justice K. V. Aravind has held that when both parties have agreed to resolve their disputes regarding the nature of the partnership through arbitration, it is unnecessary for the Court to determine whether the partnership is one "at will." Such issues are more appropriately left for adjudication by the arbitrator.
Case Title: Shrishail Irappa Kempwad & ANR And State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 103671 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 180
The Karnataka High Court recently held as unconstitutional a government order dated September 4, 2008, which denied the benefit of power tariff subsidy to farmers' societies purely on the ground of their collective consumption exceeding the specified power limit.
Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum holding thus directed the State Government and the concerned electricity distribution companies (including HESCOM) to review, reconsider, and amend the existing policy framework governing agricultural power subsidies, ensuring that farmer societies are treated at par with individual farmers.
“Consequently, it is declared that the impugned Government Order No. EN 55 PSR 2008 dated 4th September 2008 is unconstitutional, in so far as it denies the benefit of power tariff subsidy to farmer societies purely on the ground of collective consumption exceeding the specified horsepower limit...The authorities must frame and notify appropriate guidelines within a reasonable period (preferably within six months) to extend power tariff subsidies to registered farmer societies, in a manner that aligns with the principles of equality, promotes cooperative farming, and advances the broader goals of sustainable agricultural development,” it said.
Case Title: Savinaya AND Mrs Sheela G Bhat & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.13685 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 181
The Karnataka High Court recently refused to interdict the final approval granted to a woman entrepreneur to operate a Kendra (centre) under the Pradhan Mantri Bhartiya Janaushadhi Pariyojana (PMBJP) at Kumbra Village in Puttur Taluk.
Justice M Nagaprasanna dismissed the petition filed by one Savinaya also a female entrepreneur who had approached the court questioning the final approval given to operate the Kendra to another woman Sheela G Bhat.
Kendras or centres ensure availability of quality medicine at low prices, where medicines could be sold at 50% to 90% cheaper rates, compared to market rates. It said
"What is projected by the petitioner is purported loss of business by granting another Kendra within a short distance, while it is not the case, as the facts bare consideration hereinabove. But, it would not be for this court to interfere merely because a business prospect is perceived to be threatened rather, the Court must preserve the spirit of a welfare-oriented scheme designed for the many, not the few. There is no arbitrariness that is demonstrable or palpable in the case at hand. The geographical area that is contended to be overlapping, has not overlapped, as the application of the petitioner remained an application. Therefore, in conclusion, I find the petition is devoid of merit. No illegality, procedural infirmity or arbitrariness is 28 discernable from the grant of approval to the 1st respondent, to iterate public interest would be ill-served if this Court were to interdict a lawful and beneficial initiative on such slender grounds"
Case Title: Karnataka State Private Management Association of Health Institutions AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION NO. 32106 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 32185 OF 2024.
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 182
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a November 5, 2024 communication issued by the Principal Secretary, Family and Welfare Department, directing Deputy Commissioners of all the districts in the State to carry out inspection of Nursing Institutions situated within their jurisdiction.
Justice Suraj Govindaraj held thus while allowing the petition filed by Karnataka State Private Management Association of Health Institutions.
Noting that the letter issued is only an instruction and not a policy decision, it said “The Deputy Commissioner not having any expertise in educational facilities, the nature of the subject experts, the qualification thereof, not having been indicated in the instruction dated 5-11 2024, I am of the considered opinion that the said letter is completely arbitrary, the exercise of powers by the Deputy Commissioner is unbridled and such inspection is not under any particular enactment.”
Case Title: Addanada Karriappa And Philiphose Mathew
Case No: CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 1044 OF 2017
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 183
The Karnataka High Court recently set aside the conviction order passed by the trial court against Addanada Kariappa, Editor of Kannada Weekly Newspaper Veeranadu, in a criminal defamation case.
A single judge, Justice Rajesh Rai K by his order dated (April 8), acquitted the accused who was convicted by the trial court for offences punishable under Section 499, 500 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for 7 days and to pay fine of Rs.10,000.
Case Title: Athaulla Jokatte & AND And State Of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6797 OF 2022
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 184
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed prosecution initiated against eight persons who were accused of rioting and participating in an unlawful assembly in 2019 to protest against implementation of CAA-NRC.
According to the prosecution all the accused conspired to protest against implementation of CAA-NRC and assembled at the spot forming an unlawful assembly, inspite of restrictions imposed and pelted stones, soda bottles etc., at public properties.
Mere Use Of Abusive Language Not By Itself Intentional Insult U/S 504 IPC: Karnataka High Court
Case Title: Anumandala Rajesh Reddy AND State of Karnataka
Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8897 OF 2023
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 185
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a case registered by the police against an accused who while being apprehended for his involvement in another case allegedly abused the police in filthy language and tried to assault them and thereby obstructed them from discharging their duties.
A single judge, Justice Mohammad Nawaz allowing the petition filed by Anumandala Rajesh Reddy quashed the proceedings initiated against him under Sections 353 and 504 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 504 pertains to Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace.
It said, “It is not stated in the complaint the nature of abusive language used by the accused. The allegations are vague in nature. Further, mere use of abusive language would not by itself attract the ingredients of Section 504 IPC.”
Case Title: B R Anand AND V R Gisha
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.567 OF 2019
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 186
The Karnataka High Court has reiterated that the day on which a bank intimates to the holder of cheque of its dishonour has to be excluded and the same cannot be taken into consideration while calculating the period of limitation for issuing notice for payment to the drawer under Negotiable Instruments Act.
Section 138(b) is an important condition for the application of offence of cheque dishonour. It states:
"Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply...unless the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque, as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid...".
Case Title: Somarapu Vamashi AND State of Karnataka
Case No: Criminal Petition No 7476/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 187
The Karnataka High Court on Tuesday (May 27) quashed an FIR registered against a 22-year-old, accused of re-selling tickets purchased by him for the Indian Premier League (IPL) match at a higher price.
A vacation judge, Justice Suraj Govindaraj allowed the petition filed by Somarapu Vamashi who was charged for offence under Section 318 (4) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS).
The petitioner was booked by the Bellandur police station on the charge that he had brought certain tickets for the IPL match to be played between Royal Challengers Bangalore and Kolkata Knight Riders at the Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru. It was alleged that ten tickets priced at Rs 1,200 each were sold by him at Rs 6,000 each to certain persons.
Case title: Girish Bharadwaj AND State of Karnataka
Case No: WP 3817/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 188
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday set aside the Government order, directing public prosecutors to withdraw 43 criminal cases registered/pending against persons accused of various offences including rioting, attempt to murder, stated to include highly influential persons including politicians, in breach of Section 321 of Criminal Procedure Code.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind while pronouncing its order said “Petition is allowed Government Order, dated 15-10-2024, is hereby set aside, it is declared that the order shall stand non-est since inception, consequences in law will follow.” The detailed order will be made available in due course.
The order was passed while allowing the public interest litigation filed by Girish Bharadwaj questioning a government order.
Case Title: Ramesh Naik L AND State of Karnataka & Others
Case No: WP 9911/2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 189
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to prepare a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for the maintenance of the facilities by which it provides drinking water to citizens in the state.
A division bench of Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind, said “The State has a fundamental duty to supply drinking water fit for human consumption. Access to clean water is not charity, it is a constitutional promise woven into the fabric of fundamental rights. Every individual's right to life encompasses the right to access pure and safe drinking water.”
Case Title: Vidya M V AND Bhavana S
Case No: WP 14869/2025
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 190
The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (May 29) refused to quash a criminal case registered against a police sub inspector Vidya M V, who is accused of illegally obtaining Call Detail Records (CDR) of a woman.
A vacation bench of Justice Suraj Govindaraj said, “No police officer just by being a police officer can call for any CDR of any citizen of the country, without there being any investigation.”
The petitioner had approached the Court seeking to quash the case registered against her for the offences punishable under section 354(d) 409,506,509 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 66(D) and 66(E) of the Information Technology Act.
Case Title: Rait Sena Karnataka AND Union of India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.12751 OF 2021
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 191
The Karnataka High Court has directed the State Government to establish at least one crop harvesting procurement center in each Taluka for two months beyond the procurement period fixed by Government of India.
A division bench of former Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind held thus while disposing of a public interest litigation filed by Rait Sena Karnataka, a registered Society which had sought a direction to the authorities to operate produce procurement centers throughout the year, to enable farmers to sell their produce at the Minimum Support Price.
It said “In view of the fact that crop harvesting now extends beyond the traditional harvesting seasons, and in order to ensure that farmers are adequately remunerated through the Minimum Support Price (MSP) mechanism and are not compelled to resort to distress sales through middlemen, the State Government shall establish at least one procurement center in each Taluka for a period of two months beyond the procurement period fixed by the Government of India.”
Case Title: Naveen Kumar N & Others AND M/S Karnataka Power Corporation Limited & Others
Case No: WRIT APPEAL No.1298 OF 2024 (S-RES) C/W WRIT APPEAL No.1018 OF 2024 (S-RES) WRIT APPEAL No.1160 OF 2024 (S-RES) WRIT APPEAL No.1344 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 192
The Karnataka High Court directed the State Power Corporation Limited to conduct a fresh examination for all candidates who appeared in an earlier exam held in February 2024 for six posts, after noting that condition of negative marking had not been disclosed to the candidates prior to the conduct of the exam.
A division bench of former Chief Justice N V Anjaria and Justice K V Aravind while allowing a batch of appeals challenging a single judge order said, “The orders of learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.14233 of 2024 dated 12.06.2024 and in Writ Petition 16517 of 2024 dated 10.07.2024 are set aside. The Final Score List dated 12.06.2024 and the Provisional Score List dated 08.05.2024 are hereby quashed.”
Case Title: Shashank J Rai AND National Anti Doping Agency-India & Others
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.4710 OF 2024
Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 193
The Karnataka High Court recently quashed a 2022 order passed by the Anti-Doping Disciplinary Panel declaring Shashank J Rai, a senior National Basketball Player, to be ineligible for sporting events for 4 years after he was accused of doping.
Justice M Nagaprasanna while allowing the petition filed by the distinguished athlete of national acclaim and said “This Court finds the impugned orders, which culminated in the order of the Appellate Authority dated 16-04-2024 vitiated by non-consideration of vital material, absence of reasoned adjudication and a palpable breach of principle of fairness.”