Karnataka High Court
Sri. Manjesh B vs The State Of Karnataka on 25 April, 2026
Author: M.Nagaprasanna
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
1
Reserved on : 07.04.2026
Pronounced on : 25.04.2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
WRIT PETITION No. 26682 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
C/W
WRIT PETITION No. 29801 OF 2024 (GM-RES)
IN WRIT PETITION No. 26682 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI MANJESH B.,
S/O LATE BASAVALINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT OF NO.3, SHUBHODAYA
7TH MAIN, WEST OF CHORD ROAD
SHIVANAGARA, RAJAJI NAGAR
BENGALURU CITY - 560 010.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.ARUNA SHYAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W.,
SRI SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH HALAGURU PS,
REPRESENTED BY SPP
2
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI SOMANNA BHOVI
CHIKKAPUTTASWAMA BHOVI
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
R/AT AGASANAPURA VILLAGE
KASABA HOBLI, MALAVALLI TALUK
MANDYA - 571 475.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI CLIFTON ROZARIO, ADVOCATE FOR
SMT. MAITREYI KRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF
THE CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
INCLUDING THE ORDER OF COGNIZANCE DTD. 22.08.2024 IN
SPLC.NO. 215/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE LEARNED V ADJ,
MANDYA INCLUDING FIR, COMPLAINT AND CHARGE SHEET IN
CONNECTION WITH CRIME NO. 109/2024 REGISTERED BY THE
RESPONDENT HALAGUR PS FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES UNDER
SECTION 324, 323, 504, 34, 506 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(2)(va),
3(1)(s) AND 3(1)(r) OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
AMENDEMENT ACT 2015 IN SO FAR AS THIS PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED (PRODUCED AT ANNX-A, B, C AND D).
IN WRIT PETITION No. 29801 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI MANJESH B.,
S/O LATE A.L.BASAVALINGEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
R/AT MALAVALLI TALUK
3
KASABA HOBLI, AGASANAPURA POST
MANDYA - 571 430.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI M.ARUNA SHYAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE A/W.,
SRI SUYOG HERELE E., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH HALAGURU PS,
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. SRI SOMANNA BHOVI
S/O LATE SUBBA BHOVI
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
R/AT AGASANAPURA VILLAGE
MALAVALLI TALUK, MANDYA - 571 475.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1;
SRI CLIFTON ROZARIO, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING READ WITH
SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLIANT
DATED 17/10/2024 IN CRIME NO. 167/2024 REGISTERED BY THE
R-1 HALAGUR POLICE ON THE FILE OF THE PRL CIVIL JUDGE (Jr.
Dn) AND JMFC COURT, MALAVALLI, MANDYA DIST. FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCE UNDER SECTION 54, 118(1), 351(2), 351(2)
AND 352 OF BNS, 2023 IN SO FAR AS THIS PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED (PRODUCED AT ANNX-A AND B).
THESE WRIT PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 07.04.2026, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
4
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CAV ORDER
The parties to the lis are common in both these petitions, but
the crime numbers stand different. The petitioner who is common,
is accused No.2 in Crime No.109 of 2024 and accused No.1 in Crime
No.167 of 2024 concerning Writ Petition Nos.26682 of 2024 and
29801 of 2024 respectively.
2. Heard Sri M. Aruna Shyam, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional
State Public Prosecutor appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri
Clifton Rozario, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 in
both the petitions.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: -
W.P.No.26682 of 2024:
3.1. The petitioner is a public servant employed in the
Department of Town Planning in the cadre of Joint Director. The
mother of the petitioner is said to be holding a quarrying licence for
5
over two decades. On 15-05-2024, the mother of the petitioner was
served with an inspection notice from the office of the Mining and
Geology, Mandya to be present during the inspection that was
scheduled on 25-06-2024. Since the mother of the petitioner was
suffering from age related ailments, the petitioner accompanied her
to the alleged spot of inspection as well. It is the case of the
prosecution that on 25-06-2024, when the petitioner visited the
spot, the 2nd respondent and his accomplices questioned the
petitioner and accused No.1 regarding digging of trenches in their
land. It is then alleged that accused No.1 began hurling abuses at
the complainant and his accomplices and upon being completely
aware of the caste of the 2nd respondent, accused No.1 held him by
his collar and along with the petitioner indulged in assault and
caused injuries. On the next day, the 2nd respondent registers a
complaint before the jurisdictional Police alleging the said assault.
The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.109 of 2024 for the
offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 and 34 of
the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment
Act, 2015 ('the Act' for short). The Police conduct investigation and
6
file a charge sheet against the petitioner and accused No.1. Filing of
charge sheet and issuance of summons is what has driven the
petitioner to this Court in the subject petition.
W.P.No.29801 of 2024:
3.2. The parties remain the same. The cause of action for
filing the subject petition in terms of the averment in the petition is
as follows: -
It is the case of the prosecution that on 16-10-2024, accused
Nos.2 and 3, attempted to move a pile of stones lying over the
graves of the complainant's ancestors and community members
which lies adjacent to the lands in which quarrying was taking place
of the mother of the petitioner. The complainant is said to have
intervened to prevent them from doing so and on that night, it
appears, accused Nos. 2 and 3 visited the house of an individual by
name Umesh, caused disturbance carrying wooden logs. Therefore,
comes the next complaint on accused Nos. 2 and 3 and the
petitioner. Filing of the complaint has driven the petitioner to this
Court in the subject petition.
7
4. Learned senior counsel Sri M. Aruna Shyam appearing for
the petitioner in both the cases would vehemently contend that all
the allegations are against the mother of the petitioner. The
allegation against the petitioner relates only to his presence at the
scene. The learned senior counsel submits that there is a long
pending civil dispute between the complainant and the family of the
petitioner. The complaints are filed only to harass the petitioner
who is a public servant to settle their personal scores. Insofar as
Crime No.167 of 2024 concerning Writ Petition No.29801 of 2024 is
concerned, the allegation is wholly against accused Nos. 2 and 3
and not even a word against accused No.1/ the petitioner who has
been drawn into the web of proceedings only for the reason that he
is a public servant, to tarnish his image and to settle scores. The
learned senior counsel submits that the entire squabble between
the petitioner and the complainant is recorded on a mobile phone
and if needed it would be produced, which would clearly reveal that
it is the complainant and his accomplices who have hurled abuses
and assaulted the petitioner.
8
5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri Clifton Rozario
appearing for the complainant/2nd respondent would contend that
hurling of abuses has happened in the open. Therefore, on disputed
questions of fact this Court should not interfere and obliterate the
crime. The petition is not even maintainable, as the challenge is to
the order taking cognizance under the Act, which cannot be
entertained at the hands of this Court or obliterated. He would
submit that the Police in one of the cases have investigated and
filed charge sheet. It is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full-
blown trial.
6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor appearing
for the 1st respondent/State would also toe the lines of the
complainant to contend that the Police have filed a charge sheet
and therefore, it is for the petitioner to come out clean in a full-
blown trial.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the
material on record.
9
W.P.No.26682 of 2024:
8. The petitioner is accused No.2. The offences alleged are as
afore-quoted hereinabove. The entire issue triggers from
registration of a complaint. It is, therefore, necessary to notice the
complaint so registered. It reads as follows:
"UÉ,
ಆರ ಕ ೕ ಕರು
ಹಲಗೂರು ೕ ಾ ೆ,
ಹಲಗೂರು, ಮಳವ ಾಲೂಕು.
ಇಂದ,
ೋಮಣ !ೋ" #$ %ಕ&ಪ(ಟ* ಾ+ಮ !ೋ"
,ಾಸ: ಅಗಸನಪ(ರ 0ಾ1ಮ
ಕಸ!ಾ 2ೋಬ ,
ಮಳವ ಾಲೂಕು, ಮಂಡ5 67ೆ.
8ೕ$ £ÀA.:8105078513.
"ಷಯ: ನನ0ೆ ಮತು< ಪ(ಟ*=ಾಮ !ೋ" #$ >ೊಳಲಗ !ೋ", ೋಮ?ೇಖರ
#$ ಕೃಷ !ೋ", ಉCೕಶ #$ ೋಮಗ !ೋ", ೋಮಣ #$
ಸುಬE !ೋ", ರ" #$ ಮುತ<!ೋ" ರವರುಗ 0ೆ ಅ,ಾ5ಚ5 ಶಬGಗ ಂದ
!ೈದು, IಾJ ಂಧLೆ MಾN, ಹ7ೆ MಾN Oಾ1ಣ !ೆದ >ೆ 2ಾPರುವ ಬ0ೆQ
ದೂರು.
*****
Cೕಲ&ಂಡ "ಷಯ>ೆ& ಸಂಬಂRSದಂ ೆ ತಮT ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ,ೇRS>ೊಳV ವ(WೇLೆಂದ=ೆ,
ವ(WೇLೆಂದ=ೆ
ಮಂಡ5
ಮಂಡ5 67ೆ,
67ೆ ಮಳವ ಾಲೂಕು,
ಾಲೂಕು ಕಸ!ಾ 2ೋಬ , IೋXಪ(ರ 0ಾ1ಮದ ಸ,ೆY ನಂ.52
ನಂ ರ ಸ>ಾY
Iಾಗದ ಅಗಸನಪ(ರ 0ಾ1ಮದ =ಾಜ @ ಆS[ =ಾಜ #$ \ವ ಂ0ೇ0ೌಡ,
ಂ0ೇ0ೌಡ ಮಂIೇ^ @ ಮಂಜು
#$ ಬಸವ ಂ0ೇ0ೌಡ ರವರುಗಳV _Lಾಂಕ 25-06-2024 ರಂದು ಸಂIೆ 4.00 ಗಂ`ೆ ಸಮಯದ
ತಮT IೆS# ಸಂ.
ಸಂ.KA.51 MR3489 ರ ಮೂಲಕ
ಮೂಲಕ ಅಕ1ಮ,ಾX ಟ1ಂc(ಗುಂN
ಟ1ಂc ಗುಂN)
ಗುಂN 2ೊdೆಯುJ<WಾGಗ ಅ7ೇ
10
2ೋಗುJ<ದG Lಾನು ಮತು< ಪ(ಟ*=ಾಮ !ೋ" #$ >ೊಳಲಗ !ೋ",
!ೋ" ೋಮ?ೇಖರ #$ ಕೃಷ
!ೋ",
!ೋ" ಉCೕಶ #$ ೋಮಗ !ೋ",
!ೋ" ೋಮಣ #$ ಸುಬE !ೋ",
!ೋ" ರ" #$ ಮುತ<!ೋ"
ರವರುಗಳV ಸದ ಯವರನುe fಾ>ೇ ಇ ಟ1ಂc 2ೊdೆಸುJ<_ೕG =ಾ ಎಂದು >ೇಳ7ಾX
>ೇಳ7ಾX ಸದ ಯವರು
ನಮTನುe ಕು ತು ಏLೋ ವಡi !ೋ ಮಕ&ಳ,
ಮಕ&ಳ ಸೂjೆ ಮಕ&ಳ ನಮTLೆeೕ ಪ1?ೆe MಾN >ೇಳVವ kೈಯY
ಬಂತ ಮ0ೆ ಎ .S
S ಸೂjೆ ಮಕ&ಳ ಎಂದು !ೈಯುತ< ಬಂದು ನನeನುe =ಾಜ @ ಆS[ =ಾಜ ರವರು
ಏ>ಾಏP ನನe ಕುJ<0ೆ ಪl*ಯನುe mNದು>ೊಂಡ ಏLೋ ವಡi !ೋ ಮಗLೇ ಏLೋ ಂ0ೆ Jಕ
ಮುnೊ&ಂಡು ರ ೆ<ಯ 2ೋಗಲು ಆಗುವ(_ಲ,ೇ ಎಂದು 2ೇ >ೈoಂದ ನನe ಕOಾಲ>ೆ&
2ೊಡ_ರು ಾ<Lೆ 2ಾಗೂ ನನe ಕುJ<0ೆಯನುe mNದು mಂದ>ೆ& ತ ರು ಾ<Lೆ 2ಾಗೂ ಮಂIೇ^ @ ಮಂಜು
ರವರು ನಮTನುe ಉWೆGೕ\S ಈ !ೋ ಮಕ&ಳನುe ಈ0ೇ ಸುಮTLೇ #ಡ!ಾರದು ನಮT ಎದು=ೇ
ಂತು>ೊಂಡು Mಾ ಾಡುವ kೈಯY ಬಂ_Wೆ ಈ ಎ .S
S !ೋ ಮಕ& 0ೆ ಇವರನುe ಇ7ೆ 2ೊdೆದು
2ಾಕುವ ಎಂದು 2ೇಳV ಾ< ಇಬEರು ಒ`ಾ*=ೆ ಬಂದು ನಮT Cೕ7ೆ >ೈಗ ಂದ ಹ7ೆ MಾN ಇಬEರೂ ನನeನುe
mNದು>ೊಂಡು ಅ7ೇ ಇದG ಕಲನುe ಎJ<>ೊಂಡು ನನe ತ7ೆ0ೆ 2ಾಗೂ !ೆ e0ೆ,
e0ೆ >ಾಲುಗ 0ೆ Jೕವ1,ಾX
2ೊdೆದು ರಕ<0ಾಯ MಾNರು ಾ<=ೆ 2ಾಗೂ ನನeನುe >ೆಳ>ೆ& ತ Lೆಲ>ೆ& >ೆಡ" >ಾ ಂದ 2ೊ_Gರು ಾ<=ೆ
2ಾಗೂ ಪ(ಟ*=ಾಮ !ೋ" #$ >ೊಳಲಗ !ೋ",
!ೋ" ೋಮ?ೇಖರ #$ ಕೃಷ !ೋ",
!ೋ" ಉCೕಶ #$
ೋಮಗ !ೋ",
!ೋ" ೋಮಣ #$ ಸುಬE !ೋ",
!ೋ" ರ" #$ ಮುತ<!ೋ" ರವರುಗಳ Iೊ ೆ ದುಂdಾ
ವತYLೆoಂದ ವJYಸು ಾ< ಅವರುಗಳ Cೕಲು ಸಹ ಹ7ೆ MಾNರು ಾ<=ೆ.ೆ Lಾವ(ಗಳV
Lಾವ(ಗಳV ನಮT IಾJಯನುe
mNದು ವಡi=ೆಂದು !ೈಯ!ೇN ಎಂ_ದG>ೆ& ಸದ ರವರುಗಳV Lೇ,ೇನು ಒಕ& ಗರ ವಡi ಸೂjೆ ಮಕ&ಳV
ಎಂದು !ೈಯು ಾ<, ನಮTಗಳ ಕುJ<0ೆಪl*ಗಳನುe mNದು>ೊಂಡು ಅವರ ಕOಾಲಕೂ& ಸಹ >ೈಗ ಂದ
2ೊdೆದು ೕ,ೇLಾದರೂ ನಮT ಬ ತ7ೆ ಎJ< ನdೆದ=ೆ 2ಾಗೂ ನಮTನುe ಪ1\eಸುವ kೈಯY MಾNದ=ೆ
ಮTನುe 2ೊdೆದು ಾoಸು ೆ<ೕ,ೆಂದು Oಾ1ಣ !ೆದ >ೆ 2ಾPರು ಾ<=ೆ.ೆ ತ ಣ ಪ(ಟ*=ಾಮ !ೋ" #$
>ೊಳಲಗ !ೋ", ೋಮ?ೇಖರ #$ ಕೃಷ !ೋ", ಉCೕಶ #$ ೋಮಗ !ೋ", ೋಮಣ #$
ಸುಬE !ೋ", ರ" #$ ಮುತ<!ೋ" ರವರುಗಳV 0ಾಯ0ೊಂNದG ನನeನುe ಎJ<>ೊಂಡು ಮಳವ
ಸ>ಾY ಆಸq ೆ10ೆ ೇ S %P ೆrಯನುe >ೊNSರು ಾ<=ೆ, ನಂತರ ,ೈದ5ರ ಸಲ2ೆ Cೕ=ೆ0ೆ 2ೆ%sನ
%P ೆrಯನುe ಮಂಡ5 67ಾಸq ೆ1ಯ %P ೆrಯನುe ಪdೆ_ರು ೆ<ೕLೆ. ಆದG ಂದ ಸದ Cೕಲ&ಂಡ ವ5P<ಗಳ
"ರುದt ಸೂಕ< >ಾನೂನು ಕ1ಮ ಜರುXS ನನ0ೆ Lಾ5ಯ Wೊ=ೆPS>ೊಡ!ೇ>ೆಂದು ತಮT
"ನಯಪuವYಕ,ಾX Oಾ1vYS>ೊಳV ೆ<ೕLೆ."
11
The Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet. The
summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in Column No.17 reads
as follows:
"17. >ೇSನ ಸಂwಪ< ಾ=ಾಂಶ
ಈ Wೋxಾ=ೋಪಣ ಪತ1ದ >ಾಲಂ 14 ರ ನಮೂದು MಾNರುವ ಾw -01 ಾw ಂದ 06 ರವರು
>ಾಲಂ 12 ರ ನಮೂದು MಾNರುವ ಆ=ೋy 01 ಮತು< 02 ರವರುಗಳV ಘನ Lಾ5fಾಲಯದ
,ಾ5y<ಯ ಮಳವ ಾಲೂಕು, ಅಗಸನಪ(ರ 0ಾ1ಮದವ=ಾXರು ಾ<=ೆ. ಆ=ೋy-02 ರವರ 2ಾ°
«jಾಸ: ನಂ. 03. ಶು{ೋದಯ, 7Lೇ Cೖ$, ,ೆ *, ಆ| >ಾ[Y =ೋ[, \ವನಗರ, ".l.S,
=ಾIಾ6ನಗರ, !ೆಂಗಳ}ರು ಆXರುತ<Wೆ. ಾw-01 ಂದ 06 ರವರುಗಳV ಪ \ಷ* IಾJ(!ೋ")
ಜLಾಂಗ>ೆ& ೇ ದವ=ಾXರು ಾ<=ೆ, ಆ=ೋyಗಳV MPÀÌ°UÀ (ಪ1ವಗY-3ಎ) IಾJ0ೆ
ೇ ದವ=ಾXರು ಾ<=ೆ, ಾw-01 ಂದ 06 ರವರುಗಳV ಪ \ಷ* IಾJ(!ೋ") ಜLಾಂಗ>ೆ& ೇ ದವರು
ಎಂಬುದು ಆ=ೋyಗ 0ೆ J _ರುತ<Wೆ, _Lಾಂಕ:25-06-2024
_Lಾಂಕ ರಂದು ಮWಾ5ಹe 4:00 ಗಂ`ೆ
ಸಮಯದ°è ಾw-01
ಾw ರವರು ಜ~ೕನು ಕdೆ 2ೋಗುJ<WಾGಗ IೋXಪ(ರ 0ಾ1ಮದ ಸ,ೇY ನಂ:
ನಂ: 56 ರ
ಟ1ಂc(ಗುಂN
ಟ1ಂc ಗುಂN)
ಗುಂN 2ೊdೆಯಲು >ೆಎ 51, ಎಂ.
ಎಂ.ಆ€-
ಆ€- 3489ರ
ರ Iೆ.
Iೆ.S.# IೆS# SದGನುe ಕಂಡ ಾw-01
ಾw
ರವರು ಅ7ೇ ಇದG ಆ=ೋy-
ಆ=ೋy-01 =ಾಜು @ ಆS[ =ಾಜ,
=ಾಜ ಆ=ೋy-02
ಆ=ೋy ಮಂIೇ^
ಮಂIೇ^.#
# @ ಮಂಜು
ರವರನುe ಉWೆGೕ\S ಏ>ೆ ಇ°è ಟ1ಂc 2ೊdೆದು ನಮ0ೆ ೊಂದ=ೆ >ೊಡುJ<ೕ ಅಂತ >ೇ zÀÝPÉÌ ಆ=ೋy-
ಆ=ೋy
01 ರವರು ಏ>ಾಏP ಾP<-01 ರವರ ಶ‚Y ಕುJ<0ೆ ಪl* ಯನುe mNದು ಎjೆWಾN ಾw-01
ಾw ರವರನುe
ಉWೆGೕ\S ಏLೋ ವಡi ¨ÉÆý ªÀÄUÀ£ÉÃ, ಏLೋ ಂ0ೆ Jಕ ಮುnೊ&ಂಡು ರ ೆ<ಯ 2ೋಗಲು
ಆಗುವ(_ಲ,ೇ ಎಂದು ತನe ಬಲ >ೈoಂದ ಾw-01
ಾw ರವರ Jಡ ಕOಾಲ>ೆ& 2ೊdೆದು ಕುJ<0ೆಯನುe
mNದು mಂದ>ೆ& ತ ರು ಾ<Lೆ.ೆ ಆಗ ಅ¯Éèà ಇದG ಆ=ೋy-02
ಆ=ೋy ರವರು ಾw-01
ಾw ರವರನುe ಉWೆGೕ\S ಈ
ವಡi ನನe ಮಕ&ಳನುe mೕ0ೆ ಸುಮTLೆ #ಡ!ಾರದು ನಮT ಎದು=ೇ ಂತು MಾತLಾಡು ಾ<=ೆ,ೆ ಅಂತ
IಾJ ಂದLೆ MಾN ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ಆ=ೋy-01
ಆ=ೋy ಮತು< 02 ರವರು ಸMಾನ ಉWೆGೕಶ_ಂದ ಒl*0ೆ ೇ >ೊಂಡು
ತಮT ತಮT >ೈಗ ಂದ ಾw-01
ಾw ರವರ Cೖ Cೕ7ೆ Sಕ&,
Sಕ& Sಕ&,
Sಕ& ಕdೆ 2ೊdೆ_ರು ಾ<=ೆ.ೆ CµÀÖgÀ°è ಜಗಳ
LೋN ಸƒಳ>ೆ& ಓN ಬಂದ ಾw-02
ಾw ಂದ 06 ರವರುಗಳV ಾw-01
ಾw ರವರನುe ಸMಾkಾನ MಾN
ಆ=ೋy-01
ಆ=ೋy ಮತು< 02 ರವರನುe ಉWೆGೕ\S ಉWೆGೕ\S fಾ>ೆ ಇ°è ಟ1ಂc 2ೊdೆಸುJ<_ೕG =ಾ Lಾವ(
ಜ~ೕ 0ೆ 2ೋX ಬರಲು ನಮ0ೆ ಆಗುವ(_ಲ,ೆ ಎಂದು >ೇ ದG>ೆ&,
>ೆ& ಆ=ೋyಗಳV ಏ>ಾಏP
>ೆ& ಾw-02
ಾw
ಂದ 06 ರವರನುe ಉWೆGೕ\S ಏLೋ ವಡi !ೋ ಮಕ&ಳ,
ಮಕ&ಳ ಸೂjೆ ಮಕ&ಳ ನಮTLೆeೕ ಪ1?ೆe,
ಪ1?ೆe MಾN
>ೇಳVವ kೈಯY ಬಂ ಾ ಮ0ೆ ಸೂjೆ
ಸೂjೆ ಮಕ&ಳ ಎಂದು !ೈದು ಆ=ೋy-01
ಆ=ೋy ರವರು C¯Éèà ಇದG, ಒಂದು
ಕ®èನುe
ನುe >ೈ0ೆ ಎJ<>ೊಂಡು ಾw-01
ಾw ರವರ ಹ ೆಯ ಎಡ{ಾಗ>ೆ&,
ಎಡ{ಾಗ>ೆ&, !ೆ e0ೆ 2ಾಗೂ >ಾಲುಗಳ Cೕ7ೆ
12
2ೊdೆದು >ೆಳ>ೆ& ತ , Lೆಲ>ೆ& >ೆಡ" ಆ=ೋy-01
ಆ=ೋy ಮತು< 02 ರವರು ತಮT ತಮT >ಾ ಂದ ಾw-01
ಾw
ರವ 0ೆ ಒ_Gರು ಾ<=ೆ.ೆ ಾw-01
ಾw ಂದ 06 ರವರುಗಳV IಾJಯನುe mNದು ವಡi=ೆಂದು !ೈಯ!ೇN
ಎಂ_zÀÝPÉÌ ಆ=ೋy-01
ಆ=ೋy ರವರು ಾw-01
ಾw ಂದ 06 ರವರನುe ಉWೆGೕ\S ೕ,ೇನು ಒPÀÌ°ಗರ,
ಗರ ವಡi ಸೂjೆ
ಮಕ&ಳV ೕ,ೇLಾದರೂ ನಮTನುe ಪ1?ೆe MಾNದ=ೆ ಮTನುe 2ೊdೆದು ಾoಸು ೆ<ೕ,ೆ ಎಂದು Oಾ1ಣ
¨Éದ >ೆ 2ಾP ಕ®èನುe
ನುe ಆ¯Éèà #ೕ ಾP ಸƒಳ_ಂದ
_ಂದ 2ೊರಟು 2ೋXರು ಾ<=ೆ,ೆ ಾw-01
ಾw ರವರ ಹ ೆಯ
ಎಡ{ಾಗದ , ಏ`ಾX ರಕ<0ಾಯ,ಾXದುG, ಬಲ ೊdೆ0ೆ Oೆ`ಾ*X ಾw-01
ಾw ರವ 0ೆ ಾMಾನ5 ಸ+ರೂಪದ
0ಾಯಗಳV ಉಂ`ಾXರುವ(ದು ಈ >ೇSನ ತ †ೆoಂದ ದೃಢಪl*ರುತ<Wೆ.ೆ. ಆದG ಂದ ಸದ ಆ=ೋyಗಳ
"ರುದt ಕಲಂ ,323, 324, 504, 506 PÀÆqÀ 34 L¦¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ®A .3(1)(r). 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)
ಎ .S
S/ಎ
ಎ .l
l(WೌಜYನ5
WೌಜYನ5 ತdೆ)
ತdೆ JದುGಪN >ಾoWೆ-2015ರ
>ಾoWೆ ರ ೕ ಾ5 Wೋxಾ=ೋಪಣ ಪತ1ವನುe
ಸ Sರುತ<Wೆ."
ೆ
(Emphasis added at each instance)
A perusal at the complaint would clearly indicate, except the
presence of the petitioner, there is nothing that is attributable to
him as hurling of abuses and the alleged assault is by accused
No.1. The mother of the petitioner having a quarrying licence
granted for 20 years is a matter of record. The dispute between
the two i.e., the mother of the petitioner and the complainant is
subsisting or lurking even as on the date of the incident also
becomes a matter of record in the light of the documents appended
to the petition. The issue now would be, whether the petitioner can
be alleged to have hurled abuses against the complainant and
whether it would meet the ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of
the Act or otherwise.
13
9.1. A three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in the case of
HITESH VERMA v. STATE OF UTTARKHAND1 has held as
follows:
".... .... ....
12. The basic ingredients of the offence under
Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as "(1)
intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe and (2) in any place within public view".
13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act
would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and
intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or
intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the
Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of
victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic
conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as
they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under
the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable
section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations
and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of
the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or
harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in
accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family
members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that
Respondent 2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then
the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the
procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason
that Respondent 2 is a member of Scheduled Caste.
14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or
intimidation in "any place within public view". What is to be
regarded as "place in public view" had come up for consideration
before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran
1
(2020) 10 SCC 710
14
Singh v. State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 :
(2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] . The Court had drawn distinction
between the expression "public place" and "in any place within
public view". It was held that if an offence is committed outside
the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be
seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary
wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public
view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building,
but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives
or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the
public view (sic) [Ed. : This sentence appears to be contrary to
what is stated below in the extract from Swaran Singh, (2008) 8
SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in the application of this principle in
para 15, below:"Also, even if the remark is made inside a
building, but some members of the public are there (not merely
relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in
the public view."] . The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 443-44,
para 28)
"28. It has been alleged in the FIR that
Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by
Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a "chamar")
when he stood near the car which was parked at
the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was
certainly a place within public view, since the gate
of a house is certainly a place within public view.
It could have been a different matter had the
alleged offence been committed inside a
building, and also was not in the public view.
However, if the offence is committed outside the
building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the
lawn can be seen by someone from the road or
lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would
certainly be a place within the public view. Also,
even if the remark is made inside a building, but
some members of the public are there (not merely
relatives or friends) then also it would be an
offence since it is in the public view. We must,
therefore, not confuse the expression "place
within public view" with the expression "public
place". A place can be a private place but yet
within the public view. On the other hand, a public
place would ordinarily mean a place which is
owned or leased by the Government or the
municipality (or other local body) or gaonsabha or
15
an instrumentality of the State, and not by private
persons or private bodies."
(emphasis in original)
15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the
informant were within the four walls of her building. It is
not the case of the informant that there was any member
of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time
of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic
ingredient that the words were uttered "in any place
within public view" is not made out. In the list of
witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain
witnesses are named but it could not be said that those
were the persons present within the four walls of the
building. The offence is alleged to have taken place
within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of
the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh [Swaran
Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435: (2008) 3 SCC (Cri)
527], it cannot be said to be a place within public view as
none was said to be present within the four walls of the
building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet.
16. There is a dispute about the possession of the
land which is the subject-matter of civil dispute between
the parties as per Respondent 2 herself. Due to dispute,
the appellant and others were not permitting Respondent
2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since the
matter is regarding possession of property pending
before the civil court, any dispute arising on account of
possession of the said property would not disclose an
offence under the Act unless the victim is abused,
intimidated or harassed only for the reason that she
belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
17. In another judgment reported as Khuman
Singh v. State of M.P. [Khuman Singh v. State of M.P.,
(2020) 18 SCC 763: 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1104], this
Court held that in a case for applicability of Section
3(2)(v) of the Act, the fact that the deceased belonged to
Scheduled Caste would not be enough to inflict enhanced
punishment. This Court held that there was nothing to
suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant
16
only because the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste.
The Court held as under:
"15. As held by the Supreme Court, the
offence must be such so as to attract the offence
under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The offence must
have been committed against the person on the
ground that such person is a member of Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the present case,
the fact that the deceased was belonging to
"Khangar" Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There
is no evidence to show that the offence was
committed only on the ground that the victim was
a member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore,
the conviction of the appellant-accused under
Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is
not sustainable."
18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not
established merely on the fact that the informant is a
member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention
to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled
Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste.
In the present case, the parties are litigating over
possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of
abuses is against a person who claims title over the
property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled
Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not
made out.
19. This Court in a judgment reported as Subhash
Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra [Subhash Kashinath
Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 454: (2018) 3
SCC (Cri) 124] issued certain directions in respect of
investigations required to be conducted under the Act. In a
review filed by the Union against the said judgment, this Court
in a judgment reported as Union of India v. State of
Maharashtra [Union of India v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 4
SCC 761: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 686] reviewed the directions
issued by this Court and held that if there is a false and
unsubstantiated FIR, the proceedings under Section 482 of the
Code can be invoked. The Court held as under: (Union of India
17
case [Union of India v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 4 SCC 761:
(2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 686], SCC p. 797, para 52)
"52. There is no presumption that the members
of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes may
misuse the provisions of law as a class and it is not
resorted to by the members of the upper castes or the
members of the elite class. For lodging a false report, it
cannot be said that the caste of a person is the cause. It
is due to the human failing and not due to the caste
factor. Caste is not attributable to such an act. On the
other hand, members of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes due to backwardness hardly muster
the courage to lodge even a first information report,
much less, a false one. In case it is found to be
false/unsubstantiated, it may be due to the faulty
investigation or for other various reasons including
human failings irrespective of caste factor. There may be
certain cases which may be false that can be a ground
for interference by the Court, but the law cannot be
changed due to such misuse. In such a situation, it can
be taken care of in proceeding under Section 482 CrPC."
20. Later, while examining the constitutionality of the
provisions of the amending Act (Central Act 27 of 2018), this
Court in a judgment reported as Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union
of India [Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC
727: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 657] held that proceedings can be
quashed under Section 482 of the Code. It was held as under:
(SCC p. 751, para 12)
"12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise
power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the cases to
prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameters, as
already observed while deciding the review petitions.
The legal position is clear, and no argument to the
contrary has been raised."
21. In Gorige Pentaiah [Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P.,
(2008) 12 SCC 531: (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 446], one of the
arguments raised was non-disclosure of the caste of the accused
but the facts were almost similar as there was civil dispute
between parties pending and the allegation was that the
accused has called abuses in the name of the caste of the
victim. The High Court herein has misread the judgment of this
18
Court in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale [Ashabai Machindra
Adhagale v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 3 SCC 789 : (2009) 2
SCC (Cri) 20] as it was not a case about the caste of the victim
but the fact that the accused was belonging to upper caste was
not mentioned in the FIR. The High Court of Bombay had
quashed the proceedings for the reason that the caste of the
accused was not mentioned in the FIR, therefore, the offence
under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is not made out. In an appeal
against the decision of the Bombay High Court, this Court held
that this will be the matter of investigation as to whether the
accused either belongs to or does not belong to Scheduled Caste
or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the High Court erred in law to
dismiss the quashing petition relying upon later larger Bench
judgment.
22. The appellant had sought quashing of the
charge-sheet on the ground that the allegation does not
make out an offence under the Act against the appellant
merely because Respondent 2 was a Scheduled Caste
since the property dispute was not on account of the fact
that Respondent 2 was a Scheduled Caste. The property
disputes between a vulnerable section of the society and
a person of upper caste will not disclose any offence
under the Act unless, the allegations are on account of
the victim being a Scheduled Caste. Still further, the
finding that the appellant was aware of the caste of the
informant is wholly inconsequential as the knowledge
does not bar any person to protect his rights by way of a
procedure established by law.
23. This Court in a judgment reported as Ishwar Pratap
Singh v. State of U.P. [Ishwar Pratap Singh v. State of U.P.,
(2018) 13 SCC 612: (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 818] held that there is
no prohibition under the law for quashing the charge-sheet in
part. In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, the High
Court is required to examine as to whether its intervention is
required for prevention of abuse of process of law or otherwise
to secure the ends of justice. The Court held as under: (SCC p.
618, para 9)
"9. Having regard to the settled legal position on
external interference in investigation and the specific
facts of this case, we are of the view that the High Court
19
ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section
482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice. There is no
prohibition under law for quashing a charge-sheet in
part. A person may be accused of several offences under
different penal statutes, as in the instant case. He could
be aggrieved of prosecution only on a particular charge
or charges, on any ground available to him in law. Under
Section 482, all that the High Court is required to
examine is whether its intervention is required for
implementing orders under the Criminal Procedure Code
or for prevention of abuse of process, or otherwise to
secure the ends of justice. A charge-sheet filed at the
dictate of somebody other than the police would amount
to abuse of the process of law and hence the High Court
ought to have exercised its inherent powers under
Section 482 to the extent of the abuse. There is no
requirement that the charge-sheet has to be quashed as
a whole and not in part. Accordingly, this appeal is
allowed. The supplementary report filed by the police, at
the direction of the Commission, is quashed."
24. In view of the above facts, we find that the charges
against the appellant under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act are not
made out. Consequently, the charge-sheet to that extent is
quashed. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms."
9.2. The Apex Court in RABINDRA KUMAR CHHATOI v.
STATE OF ODISHA2 has held as follows:
".... .... ....
13. On a reading of the same, it is evident that the
intention to insult or intimidate with an intent to humiliate a
member of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribe must
be "in any place within public view." There is no doubt that the
second respondent herein, is a member of the Scheduled Caste.
The question is, whether, the alleged utterances by the
appellant herein, was in any place within public view. It
is noted that when the second respondent sought to
2
2024 SCC OnLine SC 5608
20
repair her house which is adjacent to the appellant's
house along with her employees (Labourers) and went
into the appellant's house without seeking his prior
permission, it was objected to by the appellant herein.
The place of occurrence of the alleged offence was at the
backyard of the appellant's house. Backyard of a private
house cannot be within the public view. The persons who
accompanied the second respondent were also the
employees or the labour force she had engaged for the
purpose of carrying out repairs to her house which is
adjacent to the appellant's house. They cannot also be
termed as public in general.
14. In the circumstances, we do not think that the
alleged utterance of the appellant herein was "in any
place within public view". Therefore, the allegation
against the appellant herein, was not made out as such."
The Apex Court in RABINDRA KUMAR CHHATOI's case supra
holds that backyard of a private house cannot be within the public
view. Employers/labourers engaged by the accused or the
complainant cannot be termed to be public in general. Therefore,
the offence was obliterated.
9.3. Later, the Apex Court in KARUPPUDAYAR v. STATE
REP. BY THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE3 has held
as follows:
".... .... ....
3
2025 SCC OnLine SC 215
21
8. For appreciating the rival submissions, it will be
apposite to refer to the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, which read thus:
"3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.--
(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled Tribe,--
(a) ......................................................
(b) ......................................................
xxx xxx xxx
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place
within public view;"
9. A perusal of Section 3(1)(r) of the SC-ST Act
would reveal that for constituting an offence thereunder,
it has to be established that the accused intentionally
insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member
of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place
within public view. Similarly, for constituting an offence
under Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act, it will be
necessary that the accused abuses any member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in
any place within public view.
10. The term "any place within public view" initially came
up for consideration before this Court in the case of Swaran
Singh v. State through Standing Counsel2. This Court in the case
of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand3 referred to Swaran
Singh (supra) and reiterated the legal position as under:
"14. Another key ingredient of the provision is
insult or intimidation in "any place within public view".
What is to be regarded as "place in public view" had
come up for consideration before this Court in the
judgment reported as Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran
Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri)
22
527]. The Court had drawn distinction between the
expression "public place" and "in any place within public
view". It was held that if an offence is committed
outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and
the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane
outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly
be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the
remark is made inside a building, but some members of
the public are there (not merely relatives or friends)
then it would not be an offence since it is not in the
public view (sic) [Ed. : This sentence appears to be
contrary to what is stated below in the extract
from Swaran Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e,
and in the application of this principle in para 15,
below:"Also, even if the remark is made inside a
building, but some members of the public are there (not
merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an
offence since it is in the public view."]. The Court held as
under : (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28)
"28. It has been alleged in the FIR that
Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by
Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a "chamar")
when he stood near the car which was parked at
the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was
certainly a place within public view, since the gate
of a house is certainly a place within public view.
It could have been a different matter had the
alleged offence been committed inside a
building, and also was not in the public view.
However, if the offence is committed outside the
building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the
lawn can be seen by someone from the road or
lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would
certainly be a place within the public view. Also,
even if the remark is made inside a building, but
some members of the public are there (not merely
relatives or friends) then also it would be an
offence since it is in the public view. We must,
therefore, not confuse the expression "place
within public view" with the expression "public
place". A place can be a private place but yet
within the public view. On the other hand, a public
place would ordinarily mean a place which is
owned or leased by the Government or the
municipality (or other local body) or gaonsabha or
23
an instrumentality of the State, and not by private
persons or private bodies."
(emphasis in original)"
11. It could thus be seen that, to be a place 'within
public view', the place should be open where the
members of the public can witness or hear the utterance
made by the accused to the victim. If the alleged offence
takes place within the four corners of the wall where
members of the public are not present, then it cannot be
said that it has taken place at a place within public view.
12. If we take the averments/allegations in the FIR at its
face value, what is alleged is as under:
That on 2nd September 2021, while the complainant was
engaged in his office doing his duty, the accused came to the office in
the morning in order to enquire about the petition given by him
already to the Revenue Divisional Officer regarding entering the name
of his father in the 'patta'. On such enquiry being made, the
complainant informed the accused that the said petition has been sent
to the Taluk office, Lalgudi and that appropriate action would be taken
after receipt of the reply from the Taluk Office, Lalgudi. It is alleged
that at that stage, the accused asked the complainant as to what caste
he belongs to and stated that the complainant belongs to 'Parayan'
caste. Thereafter, the accused stated that, "if you people are
appointed in Government service you all will do like this only...".
Thereafter, he scolded the complainant calling his caste name and
insulted him using vulgar words. The further allegation is that
thereafter the colleagues of the complainant came there, pacified the
accused and took him away.
13. Taking the allegations in the FIR at their face
value, it would reveal that what is alleged is that when
the complainant was in his office the accused came there;
enquired with the complainant; not being satisfied,
started abusing him in the name of his caste; and insulted
him. Thereafter, three colleagues of the complainant
came there, pacified the accused and took him away.
14. It is thus clear that even as per the FIR, the
incident has taken place within the four corners of the
chambers of the complainant. The other colleagues of the
24
complainant arrived at the scene after the occurrence of
the incident.
15. We are, therefore, of the considered view that
since the incident has not taken place at a place which
can be termed to be a place within public view, the
offence would not come under the provisions of either
Section 3(1)(r) or Section 3(1)(s) of the SC-ST Act."
(Emphasis supplied at each instance)
If the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet are
considered on the bedrock of the principles laid down by the Apex
Court, what would unmistakably emerge is, a lurking dispute
between the two is blown out of proportion and except the presence
of the petitioner, there is no other offence alleged against him.
Omnibus statements, both in the complaint and in the summary of
the charge sheet, are not enough circumstance for permitting
further trial against the petitioner. Therefore, the proceedings in
Special Case No.215 of 2024 must be obliterated to stop it from
becoming an abuse of the process of law.
Writ Petition No.29801 of 2024:
10. The parties are similar. The incident is said to have taken
place after the grant of an interim order in Writ Petition No.26682
of 2024. The nature of allegations remains the same, except
25
invoking the Act. Other offences are invoked in the case at hand by
registration of complaint. Since the matter is at the stage of FIR, I
deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as
follows:
"ಇವ 0ೆ
ಆರ ಕ ಉಪ ೕ ಕರು
ಹಲಗೂರು ೕ ಾ ೆ
ಹಲಗೂರು
ಮಂಡ5 67ೆ
ಇಂದ
ೋಮಣ !ೋ" #$ ಸುಬE!ೋ"
ಅಗಸನಪ(ರ 0ಾ1ಮ,
ಮಳವ ಾಲೂಕು.
ಮಂಡ5 67ೆ.
Mಾನ5=ೆ,
"ಷಯ: ಮಂಡ5 67ೆ, ಮಳವ ಾಲೂಕು, ಹಲಗೂರು 2ೋಬ ಆಗಸನಪ(ರ
0ಾ1ಮದ !ೋ" ಜLಾಂಗದವ=ಾದ ನಮT Cೕ7ೆ ಮಂIೇ^ #, ಜಂl
WೇYಶಕರು, ಆLೇಕ‰ ŠೕಜLಾ Oಾ1R>ಾರ, ,ೆಂಕ`ಾಚಲ #$
!ೊಗದ!ೋ" ಮತು< 2ೇಮಂ‹ #$ 0ೋ"ಂದ!ೋ" ಇವರುಗಳV
ನಮT Cೕ7ೆ Mಾರ ಾಂJಕ ಹ7ೆMಾN Oಾ1ಣ!ೆದ >ೆ 2ಾPರುವ ಬ0ೆQ.
Cೕಲ&ಂಡ "ಷಯ>ೆ& ಸಂಬಂ_Sದಂ ೆ, ಮಂಡ5 67ೆ, ಮಳವ ಾಲೂಕು, ಹಲಗೂರು
2ೋಬ , ಆಗಸನಪ(ರ 0ಾ1ಮದ ೋಮಣ !ೋ" ಆದ Lಾನು, ಅಗಸನಪ(ರ 0ಾ1ಮದ !ೋ"
ಜLಾಂಗದ Cೕ7ೆ ಮಂIೇ^ #, ಜಂl WೇYಶಕರು, ಆLೇಕ‰ ŠೕಜLಾ Oಾ1R>ಾರ ಇವರು ಕjೆದ
33 ವಷYಗ ಂದ ರಂತರ,ಾX ಹ7ೆ, WೌಜYನ5, Pರುಕುಳ, IಾJ ಂದLೆ 2ಾಗೂ Oಾ1ಣ !ೆದ >ೆ 2ಾP
?ೆŒೕಷ ೆ MಾN>ೊಂಡು ಬಂ_GದುG, ಈ ಕೃತ5ದ ಸಂಬಂದ ಈ0ಾಗ7ೇ _Lಾಂಕ.26/6/2024 ತಮT
ೕ ಾ ೆಯ ಅ`ಾ1Sl >ಾ•GಯN ಪ1ಕರಣವನುe ಸಹ Wಾಖ SದುG, ಸದ ಪ1ಕರಣದN
26
ಮಂIೇ^ #, ರವರು Lಾ5fಾಲಯದ !ೇ‰ ಪdೆದು ಮ ೆ< ನಮT ಜLಾಂಗದ Cೕ7ೆ ಎಂ_ನಂ ೆ
Mಾರ ಾಂJಕ ಹ7ೆMಾNS Oಾ1ಣ!ೆದ >ೆ 2ಾPWಾGLೆ. ಈ0ಾಗ7ೇ ಮಂIೇ^ Cೕ7ೆ Wಾಖ7ಾXರುವ
ಪ1ಕರಣವ( ತ †ಾ ಹಂತದ ರುವ(ದ ಂದ,
ಂದ ಪ1ಕರಣ>ೆ& ಸಂಬಂ_Sದ Iಾಗದ ಅಂದ=ೆ ನಮT
(ಅಂದ=ೆ
ಪu"Yಕರ ಸMಾ_ Cೕ7ೆ ಕಲುಗಳನುe 2ಾP,
2ಾP ಸMಾ_ಗಳನುe 2ಾಳV MಾNರುವ Iಾಗ)
Iಾಗ fಾರು ಕೂಡ
ಕಲುಗಳನುe ೆರವ( Mಾಡ!ಾರWಾX ತ †ಾR>ಾ ಗಳV ಾPತು< MಾNರು ಾ<=ೆ.ೆ ಆದ=ೆ ಈಗ ಅಂದ=ೆ
_Lಾಂಕ:
_Lಾಂಕ 16-10-2024 ರ ಬುಧ,ಾರ
ಬುಧ,ಾರ !ೆಳ0ೆQ ಸುMಾರು 8 ಗಂ`ೆಯ ಸಮಯದ ,ೆಂಕ`ಾಚಲ ಮತು<
2ೇಮಂ‹ ಇವರುಗಳV `ಾ1ಕ*€ ಮತು< ಮಂIೇ^ # ರವ 0ೆ ೇ ದ Iೆ.S
Iೆ S.#
# ಯ ಮು†ಾಂತರ
ಕಲುಗಳನುe ತುಂಬುJ<ರುವ ಸಮಯದ Lಾವ( 2ೋX ತdೆWೆವ(,
ತdೆWೆವ( ಅಷ*ರ7ಾಗ7ೇ ಸMಾ_ಯ Cೕ7ೇ
ಸು _ರುವ ಕಲುಗಳನುe ಮೂರು `ಾ1ಕ*€ 7ೋ[ ಕಲುಗಳನುe !ೇ=ೆಕdೆ ಾXSರು ಾ<=ೆ.ೆ
ನಂತರ =ಾJ1 10.30ರ
ರ ಸಮಯ>ೆ& ಮಂIೇ^ # ರವರ ಅಪq ೆಯಂ ೆ,ೆ ,ೆಂಕ`ಾಚಲ ಮತು<
2ೇಮಂ‹ ಇವರುಗಳV ಉCೕ^ ಅವರ ಮLೆಯ ಹJ<ರ ಬಂದು ಗ7ಾ`ೆ MಾN Wೊ ೆಯ
2ೊN_ರು ಾ<=ೆ,ೆ ಅದನುe ಪ1\eಸಲು ೋಮಣ !ೋ" ಆದ Lಾನು 2ೋX >ೇ ದ>ೆ&,
ದ>ೆ& ೕ ಏನನುe
>ೇಳವ(ದು ಎಂದು !ಾo0ೆ
!ಾo0ೆ ಬಂದಂ ೆ !ೈದು 2ೊdೆದು ಸೂ&ಟ€ Cೕ7ೆ ಹJ<S 2ೊdೆ_ರು ಾ<=ೆ.ೆ (0ಾN
ನಂಬ€. 2ೇಮಂ‹ >ೆ.ಎ.53 ಇ.ಎ|.4215 ,ೆಂಕ`ಾಚಲ >ೆ.ಎ.55 2ೆc 6165, Iೆ.S.#. ನಂಬ€
>ೆ.ಎ.51 ಎŽ.ಆ€.3489)
ಉCೕ^ Cೕ7ೆ Mಾರ ಾಂJಕ ಹ7ೆ MಾN,
MಾN ಎWೆಯ Cೕ7ೆ ಮತು< ತ7ೆಯ Cೕ7ೆ Wೊ ೆಯ
2ೊdೆದು,
2ೊdೆದು ಮಂIೇ^ # ಇವರ Cೕ7ೆ ೕವ( ೕ ಾ ೆ0ೆ ದೂರು ೕಡುJ<=ಾ?
ಾ ಮTನುe ಸುಮTLೆ
#ಡುವ(_ಲ.
#ಡುವ(_ಲ ಮTನುe ಾmಸುವ(WಾX ಮ0ೆ ಉ 0ಾಲ"ಲ ಎಂದ ಅ,ಾ5ಚ5 ಶಬG_ಂದ !ೈದು !ೈದು
2ೊdೆ_ರು ಾ<=ೆ.ೆ ಈ ಗ7ಾ`ೆ Mಾಡಲು ಮೂಲ >ಾರಣಕತYರು ಮಂIೇ^ # #$ ಬಸವ ಂ0ೇ0ೌಡ,
ಂ0ೇ0ೌಡ
ಮಂIೇ^ ರವರು ,ೆಂಕ`ಾಚಲ ಮತು< 2ೇಮಂ‹ ರವ 0ೆ ಹಣದ ಆ ೆ ೋ S,
S ಅವರ ಮು†ಾಂತರ
ನಮT Cೕ7ೆ Mಾರ ಾಂJಕ ಹ7ೆ MಾNS Oಾ1ಣ !ೆದ >ೆ 2ಾPರು ಾ<=ೆ.ೆ ಮಂIೇ^ # ರವರು ಸMಾR
Cೕ7ೆ ಕಲುಗಳನುe 2ಾP ಸMಾRಯನುe 2ಾಳV MಾN IಾJ ಂದLೆ MಾNರುವ ಸಂಬಂದ,
ಸಂಬಂದ Lಾಗ ೕಕ
ಹಕು& Iಾ WೇYಶLಾಲಯ !ೆಂಗಳ}ರು ಇ ಪ1ಕರಣವ( Wಾಖ7ಾX ತ †ಾಹಂತದ
†ಾಹಂತದ ರುವ(ದ ಂದ,
ಂದ
ಾ Lಾಶ Mಾಡಲು ಮಂIೇ^ # ರವರು ಈ ೕJಯ ಕೃತ5ವನುe ಎಸXರು ಾ<=ೆ.ೆ ಆದG ಂದ >ೋಡ7ೇ
ಮಂIೇ^ # ರವರನುe ಬಂRಸ!ೇಕು,
ಬಂRಸ!ೇಕು 2ಾಗೂ ಕjೆದ 33 ವಷYಗ ಂದ ರಂತರ,ಾX ಮಂಡ5 67ೆ,
67ೆ
ಮಳವ ಾಲೂಕು,
ಾಲೂಕು ಆಗಸನ ಪ(ರ 0ಾ1ಮದ ದ ತರ Cೕ7ೆ ಮಂIೇ^ # ರವರು ನdೆಸುJ<ರುವ
Pರುಕುಳ,
Pರುಕುಳ ಹ7ೆ,
ಹ7ೆ WೌಜYನ5,
WೌಜYನ5 IಾJ ಂದLೆ,
ಂದLೆ Oಾ1ಣ !ೆದ >ೆ ?ೆŒೕಷ ೆ Mಾಡುತ< ಬಂ_WಾGLೆ.ೆ ದಯ"ಟು*
ನಮ0ೆ ರ ೆ >ೊಟು* ಮಂIೇ^ # 2ಾಗೂ ಅವನ ಸಹಚರರನುe ಬಂ_ಸ!ೇ>ೆಂದು ತಮT
Oಾ1vYS>ೊಳV ೆ<,ೆ."
ೆ
(Emphasis added)
27
A perusal at the statement of objections filed by the respondent/
complainant does not indicate any injury caused by the act of
accused Nos.1, 2 or 3. The allegation is factually against accused
Nos. 2 and 3. The complaint springs only after an interim order is
granted in the companion petition. The allegation is one punishable
under Section 118 of the BNS/Section 324 of the IPC inter alia.
Section 118 of the BNS requires causing voluntary hurt or grievous
hurt by dangerous weapon. There is not even one certificate
produced to demonstrate any dangerous hurt. The crime is
undoubtedly registered only to wreak vengeance against the
petitioner, that too after the interim order is granted in the
companion petition.
11. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also produced a
pen drive which is viewed by the Court only to see that the
allegations are otherwise. The complainant has been vociferous in
hurling abuses and not the other way around. In that light,
permitting the crime even to be investigated into, in the case at
hand, would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case
28
of STATE OF HARYANA v. BHAJAN LAL4 wherein it is held as
follows:
".... .... ....
102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various
relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the
principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions
relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article
226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which
we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following
categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power
could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any
court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may
not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and
sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid
formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases
wherein such power should be exercised.
(1) Where the allegations made in the first information
report or the complaint, even if they are taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety do
not prima facie constitute any offence or make out
a case against the accused.
(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not
disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation
by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except
under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or
complaint and the evidence collected in support of the
same do not disclose the commission of any offence and
make out a case against the accused.
(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a
cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable
4
1992 Supp (1) SCC 335
29
offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer
without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under
Section 155(2) of the Code.
(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint
are so absurd and inherently improbable on the
basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a
just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for
proceeding against the accused.
(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of
the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under
which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution
and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is
a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,
providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the
aggrieved party.
(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously
instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance
on the accused and with a view to spite him due to
private and personal grudge."
(Emphasis supplied)
In the light of the said judgment, the petitions deserve to succeed
failing which, it would become an abuse of the process of law.
12. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
(i) Writ Petitions are allowed.
30(ii) Entire proceedings in Spl. C.No.215 of 2024 pending before the V Additional District Judge, Mandya and FIR in Crime No.167 of 2024 pending before the Principal Civil Judge (Junior Division) & JMFC, Malavalli stand quashed.
(iii) It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case of petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence the proceedings against any other accused.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:SS