0

“The High Court of Karnataka rejected the writ petition, upholding the Executive’s jurisdiction over road construction decisions and stressing the boundaries of judicial interference in such issues.”

Blog, High Court of Karnataka , , , ,

Case Title – Sri Iranna Vs. The Union of India

Case Number – Writ Petition No. 5201 of 2024

Dated on – 15th April,2024

Quorum – Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice Krishna S Dixit

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the Case of Sri Iranna Vs. The Union of India, the Appellants are Sri Iranna and Sri Siddaramesh whereas the Respondents are The Union of India, State of Karnataka, C, Chief Engineer of Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Special Land Acquisition Officer, Deputy Commissioner Koppal District, Koppal Development Authority, Assistant Executive Engineer NHAI and the Additional Director General Nodal Ministry of Road Transport and Highways. The Appellants in the present case are both engaged in agriculture and are the residents of Yelburga, Koppal District, Karnataka. In the present case, the Appellants have challenged the construction of a bypass road by the National Highway Authority, stating that it passes through their agricultural lands and tube wells, impacting their as well as the rights of the pedestrians and the users of the road. The Appellants had priorly instituted a similar Writ Petition No. 17969 of 2023, which was withdrawn with liberty to file again.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTSS

  1. The Appellants, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the selection of the bypass No.4 for the construction of the road is inappropriate and contrasts the guidelines.
  2. The Appellants, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the alignment of the bypass would scramble the agricultural activities and the access to the tubewells.
  3. The Appellants, through their counsel, in the present case sought for a direction of the court to discontinue the construction and embrace the option No.4 for the bypass road to safeguard the rights of the pedestrians as well as the users of the road.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

  1. The Respondents, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the construction of the road falls within the ambit of the Executive and the Court should abstain itself from interfering unless there are strong contentions to do so.
  2. The Respondents, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the request of the Appellants to dictate the layout of the road is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court.
  3. The Respondents, through their counsel, in the present case accentuated the significance of the interest of public in infrastructure projects and reiterated that the petition lacks merit.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Article 226 and Article 227 of the Constitution of India prescribes the Jurisdiction of the Court.
  2. Article 21 of the Constitution of India protects the right to life and personal liberty of a person.
  3. Doctrine of Separation of Power prescribes that the courts should show deference to decisions of the Executive unless there is a breach of binding rules.
  4. Principle of Self-Restraint prescribes that the courts should not readily interfere in the functions of the Executive unless there are strong reasons to do so.

ISSUES

  1. The main issues in the present case revolves around whether there should be an intervention of the court in the decision of the Executive for the construction of the road?
  2. Whether the request of the Appellants for a specific layout of the road is justified?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Sri Iranna Vs. The Union of India, the court appreciated the appeal of the Appellants for the public interest jurisdiction but asserted that it should be used only in cases concerning the welfare of the marginalised or weaker sections of the society or in cases concerning the violation of the fundamental rights of the people of the country. The court cited the previous cases where the court has declined to interfere in matters relating to the infrastructure projects, averring that such matters should be best left to the decisions of the Executive. The court, in the present case, held that planning the layout as well as executing the road projects are the functions of the executive and does not come within the ambit of the court, unless it is shown to be arbitrary or violative of the fundamental rights of the people of the country. The court in this case, dismissed the petition of the Appellants, enunciating that the request of the Appellants for the specific layout of the road being constructed cannot be entertained since it lies under the realm of the Executive.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment

0

“The High Court of Karnataka Grants Anticipatory Bail to Rape Accused Due to Lack of Evidence of Coercion or False Promises in Allegations.”

Blog, High Court of Karnataka , , , , , , , ,

Case Title – Varun Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka

Case Number – Criminal Petition No. 2020/2024

Dated on – 18th April 2024

Quorum – Justice Rajendra Badamikar

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the Case of Varun Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka, the Appellant, Varun Kumar, instituted a petition under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 seeking anticipatory bail in apprehension of his arrest in Crime No. 50/2024 of the Jnanabharathi Police Station, Bengaluru. The present case concerns the allegations of offenses under Section 376(3) of the and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 as well as Section 4(2), 5(L) and 6 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, 2012 (POCSO Act). The Complainant in the present case (further referred herein as “Victim”) claimed that the Appellant started profaning her on Instagram, when she was in the minor age of 16 years old in 2018, despite her disinterest. The Victim accused the Appellant of frequently raping her from 2019 to 2023 in various locations on the pretence of uploading on social media, the intimate pictures taken by him of the Victim.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS

  1. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the relationship between the Appellant and the Victim was consensual and that it started when both were majors.
  2. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the family of the Victim is influential and is behind the allegations put forth on the Appellant.
  3. The Appellant, through their counsel, in the present case refused any coercion or false promise on the pretext of a marriage and affirms that their families initially were in support of their relationship and approved the same.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

  1. The Respondentss, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the Appellant committed rape and exploitation under the pretence of love and marriage.
  2. The Respondentss, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the influence of the Appellant poses a menace of fiddling with witnesses and evidence.
  3. The Respondentss, through their counsel, in the present case contented that the recent demise of her father, the Victim is vulnerable.

LEGAL PROVISIONS

  1. Section 376(3) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for committing the offense of Rape of a woman under the age of Sixteen years as rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than twenty years which may extend to life imprisonment which shall mean the natural life of the person as well as fine as required for the medical expenditures as well as the expenditure of rehabilitation of the victim.
  2. Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for committing the offense of Cheating as imprisonment for either description of a term which may extend to seven years as well as fine.
  3. Section 4(2) of the POCSO Act, 2012 prescribes the Punishment for committing penetrative sexual assault on a woman less than sixteen years of age as imprisonment for a term not less than twenty years which may extend to the natural life of the person as well as fine.
  4. Section 5(L) of the POCSO ACT, 2012 defines Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault.
  5. Section 6 of the POCSO ACT, 2012 prescribes the Punishment for committing Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault on woman below the age of sixteen years as rigorous imprisonment for a term not less than twenty years which may extend to life imprisonment which shall mean the natural life of the person as well as fine.

ISSUES

  1. The main issues in the present case revolves around whether the carnal relationship between the Appellant and the Victim was consensual or coerced?
  2. Whether the Appellant poses a menace of fiddling with the evidences or witnesses?
  3. Whether the influence of the Appellant or the family background of the Victim affects the case?

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Varun Kumar Vs. State of Karnataka, observed the consensual relationship between the Appellant and the Victim which lasted for several years. The court focused on the influential family background of the Victim and questioned the reliability of the allegations put forth against the Appellant and that the delay in instituting the complaint and the continued relationship between the Victim and the Appellant raised doubts on the legitimacy of the allegations against the Appellant. The court, taking into consideration, the facts and circumstance of the present case, grants the anticipatory bail to the Appellant, imposing certain conditions to ensure his coordination with the process of investigation.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment