The Karnataka High Court has quashed POCSO and IPC proceedings against a father, holding that no material supported the accusation and that the complaint followed a setback in custody proceedings, and has partly quashed a related dowry harassment case, sparing the husband’s parents but not the husband.
The Karnataka High Court has refused to quash an FIR alleging cheating and criminal conspiracy over Rs 21.35 lakh said to have been paid to resolve pending property litigation, holding that a plea that the dispute is civil does not by itself end a criminal case, and directing a proper and in-depth investigation.
The Karnataka High Court has upheld a trial court’s order allowing a plaintiff to amend her plaint, holding that an amendment that only clarifies the existing cause of action, without changing the nature of the suit or setting up a new case, and which causes no prejudice to the other side, is to be allowed liberally to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The Court declined to interfere in its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227.
The Karnataka High Court has quashed domestic violence proceedings against a woman’s elderly parents-in-law, holding that, in the absence of specific allegations of domestic violence against them, continuing the case would be an abuse of process. The Court, however, allowed the proceedings and an order of Rs 7,000 monthly interim maintenance to continue against the husband, finding sufficient material and that the wife was unable to maintain herself.
A WhatsApp status, visible only to one’s contacts, is not a “publication or circulation” and does not by itself attract the offence of promoting enmity between communities under Section 505(2) IPC, the Karnataka High Court held, quashing an FIR over a post uploaded after the 2024 Lok Sabha result. Bengaluru: The Karnataka High Court has […]
The Karnataka High Court has quashed an FIR against a shopkeeper accused of making insulting remarks against the Prime Minister when questioned about barricades outside his shop, holding that the offence of intentional insult to provoke breach of peace under Section 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita requires an insult directed at the complainant, not a third party. With no such ingredient made out, and an unexplained delay in the complaint, continuing the prosecution would be an abuse of process.
The Supreme Court has dismissed the State of Karnataka’s petition challenging a Karnataka High Court order that declared the arrest of a Kodagu homestay owner illegal and awarded him Rs 5 lakh compensation. Declining to interfere, the Court left the High Court’s findings intact. The High Court had held that the arrest rested on a provision of the Foreigners Act that had already been repealed.
The Karnataka High Court has set aside a Single Judge’s order quashing the acquisition of land for a DRDO defence research facility, holding that a completed acquisition for a genuine public purpose cannot be annulled in its entirety for a procedural lapse. The Court held that private property rights, though real, must be harmonised with the State’s obligation to provide for national defence, and that compensation disputes are to be pursued through statutory remedies, not by quashing the acquisition.
Karnataka Governor Thaawarchand Gehlot has written to Chief Minister D.K. Shivakumar advising reconsideration of the State’s September 8 order limiting the singing of Vande Mataram to its first two stanzas at government functions. The Governor contends the order is contrary to the Union’s protocol on the National Song and the 2026 amendment to the national-honour law, and that, under Articles 162, 256 and 257, a State cannot by executive instruction prescribe a version inconsistent with the Union’s on a subject outside its legislative competence.
The Karnataka High Court has deferred, by three weeks, a PIL challenging the State government’s September 8 order limiting the singing of Vande Mataram to its first two stanzas at government functions, after the State pointed out that a related matter, TM Krishna’s challenge to the Centre’s Vande Mataram circular and the 2026 amendment, is pending before the Supreme Court. The petitioner argued that a State cannot decide the content of a national song; the State defended the order as guidance, not a mandate.