Karnataka High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 14 - July 20, 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 234 to 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 240

Nominal Index:

Dr Manjunath R AND The Secretary To Government of Karnataka & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 234

Rohit Jawa AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 235

Abhishek Mishra AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 236

Asif & ANR AND State of Karnataka. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 237

Balakrishna K P & ANR AND K P Puttaraju & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 238

M Sharadamma & Others AND Kiran Kumar & Others. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 239

Ansari AND State of Karnataka & ANR. 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 240

Judgments/Orders

Guest Lecturer Making Press Statement In 'Public Interest' Not Misconduct: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Termination Order

Case Title: Dr Manjunath R AND The Secretary To Government of Karnataka & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.15289 OF 2025

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 234

The Karnataka High Court set aside the of termination of a guest lecturer appointed to Department of Journalism and Mass Communication in Bengaluru North University Kolar, after he made a statement in the press on grants sanctioned to Kolar District claiming that these were not properly utilised by the officials.

Justice H T Narendra Prasad allowed the petition filed by Dr Manjunath R and quashed the termination order issued dated 09.04.2025 passed by Vice Chancellor, relieving the petitioner from the post of temporary Guest Lecturer in the University and also ordered not to accept his application for appointment to the post of Guest Lecturer in the respondent – University, for three years.

Karnataka High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against MD Of Hindustan Unilever Over Alleged 'Unsafe' Horlicks Biscuit Sample

Case Title: Rohit Jawa AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8536 OF 2023

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 235

The Karnataka High Court has quashed a criminal case registered against Rohit Jawa, Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Hindustan Unilever Ltd under Food Safety and Standards Act, after certain allegedly "unsafe" samples of Horlicks biscuits were purportedly recovered from a person's house.

Sending Text Messages With Foul Language Not Offence Of Stalking Under S.354D IPC: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: Abhishek Mishra AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION No.8596 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 236

The Karnataka High Court recently dropped charges of stalking levelled against a man saying that merely sending text messages to the complainant (victim) containing foul language does not constitute the offence of stalking under Section 354D of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

Section 354-D deals with stalking. Any man who follows a woman and contacts or attempts to contact such a woman to foster personal interaction or monitors the woman on the internet, email or electronic communication commits the offence of stalking.

A single judge, Justice M Nagaprasanna held thus while partly allowing the petition filed by one Abhishek Mishra who had approached the court seeking quashing of a criminal case registered against him.

It said, “Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 354D i.e., stalking is concerned, the allegation against the petitioner and the complainant is of sexual acts. Mere sending messages between the two or exchange of messages which contained profanity would not amount to stalking. Therefore, the offence of stalking is loosely laid against the petitioner.”

S.174 BNSS | Karnataka High Court Directs State To Frame Rules On Manner Of Recording Non-Cognizable Offences

Case Title: Asif & ANR AND State of Karnataka

Case No: CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201594 OF 2024

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 237

The Karnataka High Court has asked the State Government to frame rules under Section 174 BNSS which mandates the police officer to lodge information on the commission of a non-cognizable offence in a book, in such form as prescribed under the relevant rules framed by the state government.

The court said this after noting that even though BNSS came into force from July 1, 2024 till date no such rules have been framed by the state.

[S.151 CPC] Karnataka High Court Lays Down Guidelines To Be Followed By Trial Courts Before Granting Police Protection

Case Title: Balakrishna K P & ANR AND K P Puttaraju & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.51712/2019

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 238

The Karnataka High Court has said that the exercise of power by the trial Court to consider the application for police protection is an inherent power of the Court under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code. The trial Court may pass such an order as may be necessary for the ends of justice or to prevent the abuse of the process of the Court.

A single judge, Justice Vijaykumar A. Patil held thus and issued guidelines to be followed by trial courts while considering the application made seeking police protection by the plaintiff in a suit. It said, “I am of the view that the consideration of the application filed for police protection before the trial Court shall be based on various factors like:

Plaintiff Can Summon Defendant As Witness In Suit For Specific Performance But Trial Court Must Exercise Discretion Judiciously: Karnataka High Court

Case Title: M Sharadamma & Others AND Kiran Kumar & Others

Case No: WRIT PETITION NO.50575/2019

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 239

The Karnataka High Court has upheld an order of the trial court which allowed an application filed by a plaintiff in a suit filed for specific performance of contract, seeking to summon the defendant in the case as a witness.

The Trial Court had concluded that any party to the suit can be summoned as a witness and allowed the application as per Rule 21 of Order XVI (summoning and attendance of witnesses) CPC. The defendants in the suit M Sharadamma and others had approached the high court challenging trial court's 12-09-2019 order.

Karnataka High Court Upholds 20-Year Sentence Of Man Charged U/S 377 IPC & POCSO For Assaulting 6-Yr-Old Boy

Case Title: Ansari AND State of Karnataka & ANR

Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100081/2023

Citation No: 2025 LiveLaw (Kar) 240

The Karnataka High Court recently upheld the order of the trial court sentencing a 27-year-old man to undergo 20 years ' rigorous imprisonment after convicting him for offences under Section 377 (Unnatural offence) of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 4 and 6 of the Protection of Children From Sexual Offences Act (POCSO).

A single judge, Justice J M Khazi, dismissed the appeal filed by Ansair Khasim Jingru, who had challenged the trial court order dated 24-11-2022 convicting him.

It said “The examination of oral and documentary evidence placed on record by the prosecution clearly establishes the allegations made against the accused. The trial Court on detailed and thorough analysis of the evidence led by the prosecution has come to a correct conclusion that the accused has committed the offences alleged and convicted and sentenced him. The conclusions arrived at by the trial Court is consistent with the evidence on record and this Court finds no perversity calling for interference.”