MR MADUKAR JOIS Y V vs STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
R
TH
DATED THIS THE 4 DAY OF JUNE, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3478 OF 2025
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 2990 OF 2025
IN CRL.P No. 3478/2025
BETWEEN:
1. B.S.JAGADISH
S/O B.R.SOMASUNDAR,
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HIG-68,
KHB COLONY, 60FT ROAD,
VINOBANAGAR,
SHIVAMOGGA – 577 204.
2. RAVASAHEB GALABI
S/O HONNAPPA GALABI,
AGED ABOUT 52 YEAS,
RESIDNG AT NO. 20/2,
ND
2 FLOOR, QUEEN ROAD,
H.K.P. ROAD,
BENGALURU – 560 051.
3.
NIRANJAN KC
S/O K.E.CHANNABASAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
RESIDING AT HLC 20CD
Digitally signed
by SANJEEVINI J
KARISHETTY
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
- 2 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
TH
4 CROSS, HUTTA COLONY,
BHADRAVATHI,
SHIVAMOGGA – 577 301.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S.SRIRANGA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SMT.SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS BHADRAVATHI NEW TOWN POLICE STATION,
SHIVAMOGGA – 577 301.
REPRESENTED BY HCGP
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU – 01.
2. MR.RAVI B.N.,
S/O LATE NAGARAJ RAO A.H.,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SRI RAGHAVENDRA KRUPA,
ND
GANDHINAGARA, 2 CROSS, HALENAGARA
BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA – 577 301.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI RAVISHANKAR K., ADVOCATE)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S 528 OF BNSS BY PRAYING TO a)
QUASH THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 19.02.2025
(ANNEXURE E) LODGED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND
COMPLAINT DATED 19.02.2025 (ANNEXURE F) FILED BY
RESPONDENT NO.2 AS AGAINST PETITIONERS HEREIN U/S.
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) AND 3(1)(va) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTE AND
SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989
(1989 ACT) AND SECTION 351(2), 352, 127(2) AND 190 OF
THE BHARATHIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA, (BNSS)
- 3 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
2023; b) CONSEQUENTLY, QUASH ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.39/2025 PENDING ON THE FILES
OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, SHIVAMOGGA
(SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI) AS AGAINST PETITIONERS
HEREIN U/S. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) AND 3(1)(va) OF THE
SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 (1989 ACT) AND SECTION 351(2),
352, 127(2) AND 190 OF THE BHARATHIYA NAGARIK
SURAKSHA SANHITA, (BNSS) 2023.
IN CRL.P NO. 2990/2025
BETWEEN:
1. MR.MADUKAR JOIS Y.V.,
S/O YTV JOISE,
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,
TH
RESIDING AT TILAKA, 4 CROSS,
JAYADEVA EXTENSION, ALKOLA,
VINOBANAGAR,
SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.
2. MR.PRATHEEK M. JOIS
S/O MADHUKAR JOIS Y.V.,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
TH
RESIDING AT TILAKA, 4 CROSS,
JAYADEVA EXTENSION,
ALKOLA, VINOBANAGAR,
SHIVAMOGGA – 577 201.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI S.SRIRANGA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SMT.SUMANA NAGANAND, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY ITS BHADRAVATHI POLICE STATION,
- 4 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
SHIVAMOGGA – 577 301
REPRESENTED BY
SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU – 560 001.
2. MR.RAVI B.N.,
S/O LATE NAGARAJ RAO A.H,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SRI RAGHAVENDRA KRUPA,
ND
GANDHINAGARA, 2 CROSS,
HALENAGARA, BHADRAVATHI,
SHIVAMOGGA – 577 301.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI B.N.JAGADEESHA, ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI RAVISHANKAR K., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.528 OF BNSS PRAYING TO A.
QUASH THE FIR DATED 19.02.2025 (ANNEXURE E)
LODGED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 AND COMPLIANT DATED
19.02.2025 (ANNEXURE F) FILED BY RESPONDENT NO.2
AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN; B. CONSEQUENTLY,
QUASH THE CRIME NO.39/2025 PENDING ON THE FILES
OF IV ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
SHIVAMOGGA (SITTING AT BHADRAVATHI) AS AGAINST
THE PETITIONERS HEREIN U/S.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) AND
3(1)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 AND SEC.351(2), 352,
127(2), 190 OF BNSS 2023 WHEN OPENED BY
RESPONDENT NO.1.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 5 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
ORAL ORDER
Criminal petition No.2990/2025 is preferred by accused
Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.39/2025, now pending before the IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga (sitting at
Bhadravathi), for the offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and Sections
351(2), 352, 127(2) and 190 of the BNS. The companion
petition is preferred by accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 in the said
crime.
2. The complainant in these two petitions is common and
the two petitions concern accused Nos.1 to 5. Therefore, these
two petitions are taken up together and disposed by this
common order. For the sake of brevity, facts obtaining in
Crl.P.No.2990/2025 would be narrated.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
The company involved in the case at hand is one Malnand
Alloys Casting Private Limited (for short ‘the company’).
Accused No.1 is the Managing Director, accused No.2 is the
- 6 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
Executive Director, accused Nos.3, 4 and 5 are the employees
of the said company. Respondent No.2 was an employee of the
company for 18 long years. Owing to certain omissions and
commissions / negligence on the part of the complainant,
during the shift in which the complainant was working, the
company is said to have incurred loss of production. Owing to
such loss of production, a show cause notice comes to be
issued against the complainant on 13.12.2024. The
complainant replies to the said notice, denying all the
allegations in terms of his reply dated 21.12.2024. The reply
was found to be unsatisfactory and therefore, the company
appointed an Enquiry Officer, who in turn issues a notice of
enquiry dated 15.01.2025, directing the complainant to appear
on 27.01.2025. Being aggrieved by the notice of the enquiry,
the complainant approaches the Industrial Tribunal in
I.D.No.2/2025, seeking a declaration that the show cause
notice was unlawful and also sought a direction to the
petitioners to pay compensation for the financial distress
caused by the petitioners and an order restraining the
petitioners from engaging in any further caste based
discrimination. The concerned Court did not grant ex-parte
- 7 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
interim order as sought but issued notice to hear the
petitioners. When things stood thus, the complainant registers
a complaint before the jurisdictional police alleging that
between the dates 13.08.2024 and 15.08.2024, the petitioners
have caused criminal intimidation and intentionally insulted the
complainant by taking the name of his caste. The allegation in
the complaint was that, he was been working for 18 years and
was wrongfully confined in the premises of the company and
was abused. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime
No.39/2025, against these five accused. The registration of the
crime is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the
subject petitions.
4. Heard Sri S. Sriranga, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public
Prosecutor for respondent No.1 – State and Sri Ravishankar K.,
learned counsel for respondent No.2, in both the petitions.
5. Sri S. Sriranga, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners would vehemently contend that the registration of
the crime or the subject proceedings by the complainant is only
to arm-twist the petitioners to yield in the litigation, which is
- 8 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
pending before the concerned Industrial Tribunal, wherein the
complainant challenges the show cause notice so issued. He
would submit that there is neither hurling of abuses much less,
intentionally hurling of abuses against the complainant taking
the name of the caste. Therefore, the registration of the crime
on the face of it, is an abuse of the process of the law and
misuse of the provisions of the Act.
6. Per contra, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional
State Public Prosecutor appearing for the State would
vehemently refute the submissions of the learned senior
counsel for the petitioners contending that the investigation in
such cases is must in the least and hurling of abuses cannot be
decided in a petition under Section 528 of the BNSS, but will
have to be enquired by the Investigating Officer. It would
always be open for the petitioners to approach the appropriate
forum, in the event, a final report would go against the
petitioners. He would seek dismissal of the petition.
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 - complainant
would also seek dismissal of the petition on the score that the
abuses have been hurled by the petitioners in the premises of
- 9 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
the company. Therefore, it is necessary that investigation in
the least must be conducted to unearth the truth and veracity
of the complaint so registered. He would also thus, seek
dismissal of the petition.
8. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and
have perused the material on record.
9. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The
company is incorporated in the year 1983. Accused Nos.1 and
2 are the Managing Director and Executive Director and
accused Nos.3 to 5 are the office bearers. Respondent No.2
joined the company 18 years prior to the registration of the
complaint and was at the relevant point in time working as
Supervisor - Production and was in charge of shifts. When the
complainant was on duty and was supervising the night shift
commencing from 11.00 p.m. to 07.00 a.m. on 15.11.2024,
due to the negligent act of the complainant, the company
incurs loss of production. The company then issues a show
cause notice on 13.12.2024. The show cause notice reads as
follows:
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
“HR/2024-2025 Date: 13.12.2024
Mr. Ravi B.N,
Emp. Code:0053,
Supervisor - Production.
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
You are in the employment of the factory as Supervisor-
Production and responsibilities, apart from others, are that of
you are in charge of shift. Being shift-in-charge you are
responsible for deployment of labour in the shift, allocation of
work to them, supervise their functions, operations of
machines and arranging materials required in the shift, and
achieving production expected of the shift. Thus, your nature
of work warrants management to have fairly high degree of
confidence in you.
On 14.11.2024 you were on duty as shift-in-charge of night
shift commencing at 11.00 PM and ending at 07.00 AM of
15.11.2024. During the above shift Heat No.5D324 Grade:
1.4405 PTD was planned in the furnace and as per the plan
after melting you were expected to send the same to the Lab.
Through the helper, but you did not do so and asked
Mr.Vinayakumar C, Lab Assistant to take the bath sample. On
Mr.Vinayakumar testing the sample at the Lab. He found that
it was not tallying with 1.4405 grade, therefore he requested
you to provide him one more sample. Though as per standard
foundry practice you were expected to give second sample to
the Lab. and after getting the result, if the same was not
tallying with 1.4405 grade, you were expected to take
decision before making the ingot, you did not provide second
sample to the Lab. Next day when the ingot made by you was
examined through PMI, it showed the result of tallying with
1.4405. Later piece of the above ingot was checked through
the spectrometer, wherein it was found that except nickel
6.61% all other elements tallied with 1.4405 grade, which
shows that by diluting the melt with 15 Kgs. LCMS & ferro
alloys castings could have been made. Due to your above
negligence, there was loss of production to the extent of 150
Kgs which works out to Rs.22,200/- including additional
labour, power consumption and other resources. On the
above, you were issued notice dated 19.11.2024 calling for
your explanation.
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
To make a detailed investigation into the matter on
18.11.2024 Mr.Jagadish B.S, CEO called you to his office at
about 3.30 PM, wherein Mr. Ravasaheb Galabi, Senior
Manager Production, Mr. N. Subbanna, Head QA &
Laboratory, Mr. Niranjana K. C, Manager HR, Mr.
Naveenkumar K. R. Asst. Manager HR, Mr.Ajay. L. J.
Supervisor Production Mr. Vinaykumar. C. Lab Assistant and
Mr.Hanumanthappa, Security Supervisor were present. When
Mr Jagadish B.S questioned you on the above, you reacted in
Kannada Language as "naanu SC & ST antha target
maaduthira" by saying so you went to touch his feet, which
he did not allow. On your above conduct, you were issued
notice dated 20.11.2024 calling for your explanation.
You by your letter dated 23.11.2024, instead of offering
explanation, made allegations against Mr.Jagadish B.S of his
using abusive words against you. On enquiry with the
persons present at that time, it is found that you have made
false and vicious allegations against Mr.Jagadish B.S.
You were on duty in second shift on 22.11.2024 commencing
at 03.00 PM & ending at 11.00 PM being shift in-charge for
melting at Hall no 01. For Heat No: 50493. Grade: CF8 you
were given melting log sheet cum charge calculation sheet
with 1771 KG where you have charged excess material
against the plan and a total of 160 Kgs of excess metal is
ingotted which indicates that you have deviated melting plan.
By using ready moulds for grade CF8 for pouring of excess
material, loss of material would have been minimized. Being
Supervisor in melting department, it is your responsibility to
run the shift as per plan without rejection or wastage of raw
materials to get optimum utilization of labour, material,
machine and power and the above action shows that you
have failed to perform your duties. Your above conduct has
resulted in loss of raw material, power, labour to the extent
of 160 Kgs, and financial loss to the company to the extent of
Rs.61.600.
The charges alleged as above amounts to acts of misconduct
of gross negligence, negligence and neglect of work, wastage
of company property, making false and vicious allegations
and an act amounting to an act subversive of discipline.
Further considering your nature of duty, it amounts to
management losing confidence on you.
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
Therefore, you are hereby called upon to show cause in
writing within two days of the receipt of this notice as to why
necessary disciplinary and administrative action should not be
taken against you. In case you fail to offer your explanation
as stated above, it will be deemed that you have no
explanation to offer and further action will be taken.
For Malnad Alloy Castings Pvt. Ltd.,
Y. V. Madhukar Jois
Managing Director.”
9.1. The complainant submits an explanation to the show
cause notice on 21.12.2024. The explanation reads as follows:
“The Managing Directory,
Malnad Alloy Castings Pvt. Ltd.,
Submitted:
Sub: Explanation to the show cause notice
HR/2024-25 dated 13.12.2024/17.12.2024.
================================
01. In response to the above show-cause notice, I write to
submit that:
a. Yes, I have been serving this esteemed company
for the last 17 years as a supervisor.
b. True that as a Shift-Incharge, I have to allocate
work to the workers posted under me in that
particular Shift, supervise their work, Including
operation of Machines and arranging required
materials and aim at achieving the production
expected In the Shift.
I have been, diligent In my work by discharging the same to
the best of my ability and Interest of the Management.
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
02. It is true that I was posted to work in the 3rd Shift on
14.11.2024 commencing from 11 pm to 7am on the following
day. While I took over the charge of my duty on 14.11.2024
by 11 pm, the PTD Furnace was already loaded by Shri Ajay,
Supervisor, In the previous Shift. I continued the process
thereafter by melting the said load.
03. After melting, it is true that as a Supervisor I was
supposed to send the 'bath-sample' to the Laboratory for
chemical analysis. Accordingly, I have sent the 'bath-sample'
to the Lab through Shri Vinaykumar, the Lab Assistant.
04. Shri Vinaykumar, thereafter, rang up to me to inform that
the said sample was not tallying with the specification of
Grade: 1.4405. But it is not true to say that he requested for
a second sample for a repeat-test. I would like to emphasize
that there was no such practice of repeat-test the Grade in
question in the regular process. Even then, if it was
requested, I would have certainly sent one more sample. I
submit that the idea of 'repeat test' is an afterthought and
improvement to the Shaw-Cause Notice dated 19.11.2024.
05. It is true that I was expected to examine and take a
decision before ingoting the defective-melt. But, as a matter
of abundant caution, as soon as I got the Information from
Vinaykumar, about non-conforming to the required
specification, I contacted Shri A.N. Subbanna, Head of QA &
Lab to confirm the correctness of the version of Vinaykumar.
Shri A.N.Subbanna confirmed the information given to me by
Vinaykumar.
06. Thereafter, I arranged a Conference-Call with my Senior
Manager-Production, Shri Ravasaheb Galabi and the Head of
the Lab, Shri A.N.Subbanna to decide about ingoting the
same [heat No.5D324, Gr 1.4405). After a detalled discussion
among all the three of us, my Head, Shri Ravasaheb Galabl
ordered me to ingot the same. Accordingly I have done.
07. The version now propounded In the Notice under reply, is
an Improved version aimed at targeting me with the charges
of misconduct. I have recorded the discussion held in the
Conference-Call, which speaks for itself the truth and nothing
but the truth.
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
08. I totally deny having been guilty of the charges such as of
negligence, being responsible for the loss of production to the
extent of 150 kg valued at 22,200.00, exploitation of
additional labour, extra power consumption and other
resources.
09. I may also state that the principles of Fairness and
Natural Justice, which are hall-marks in the Industrial
relationship, enjoined on the team of Officers named in the
Show-Cause Notice to have called me to witness their acts of
reexamine the ingoting through PMI, checking the same
through Spectrometer etc. Be that as it may, the Show-Cause
Notice under reply has emanated, manifestly, from the report
of all the above named Officers. As an MD, you were, in my
opinion could not be a witness to all such things. The
principles of Natural Justice and Fairness warranted supply of
such a copy/ies to me to enable me to give specific and more
appropriate explanation.
10. I totally deny what is alleged against me in the Show-
Cause Notice under, reply, which is an Improvement. I had
submitted my detailed explanation to your show cause notice
dated 19.11.2024, I crave you to refer to the same as a part
of my present explanation,
11. I regret to note that, by your letter dated 17.12.2024,
you have flatly denied the reports/information with
supporting documents forming the basis of this Show-Cause.
The present Show Cause Notice has evidently arisen out of
the report/s of the CEO and other Officers named above. You
have failed to realize that this Show-Cause is a question of
my life and death.
12. I would like to reiterate what I have already
submitted that:
“……Immediately after resuming my duty on
18.11.2024. I met the Managing Director and
apprised him the cause for Ingoting the said
material during the night-shift on 14.11.2024.
While returning from the office of the Managing
Director and heading towards my department, I
met Shri Jagadish, the CEO, who was heading to
his office. The CEO could not bear the sight of me
- 15 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
coming out of the chambers of the MD and his
indignation burst out with the following
utterances:
" . , ".
ಾೋ ಾೋ ಾೋ ಾೋ ಎಂ ಎಂ ಎಂ ಎಂ ಹ ರ ಹ ರ ಹ ರ ಹ ರ ೋೆ ೋೆ ೋೆ ೋೆ
and asked me to follow him to his office referring
me, on his way to his office as
" , – , "
ಾ ಾ ಾ ಾ ೆ ೆ ೆ ೆ ೌಂಡ ಾ ಾ ಾ ಾ ನನ ನನ ನನ ನನ ೇಂಬ ೇಂಬ !ೆ" ೇಂಬ ೇಂಬ !ೆ" !ೆ" !ೆ"
I followed him implicitly to his Office. After
entering his office, he uttered the following:
" " ( . .
ಇ ಇ !ಾ$ಂ!ೆ ಇ ಇ !ಾ$ಂ!ೆ !ಾ$ಂ!ೆ !ಾ$ಂ!ೆ %ೕೇ %ೕೇ %ೕ %ೕೇ ೇ ಾರಣ ಾರಣ ಾರಣ ಾರಣ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ತಪ+, ತಪ+, ತಪ+, ತಪ+, ಒ.,ೊ ಒ.,ೊ ಒ., ಒ.,ೊ ೊ ನನ ನನ ನನ ನನ ಎ/ ಎ/ ಎ/ ಎ/ .
)
0ಾ ಯನು 0ಾ ಯನು 0ಾ 0ಾ ಯನು ಯನು ಉ3ೆ4ೕ56 ಉ3ೆ4ೕ56 ಉ3ೆ4ೕ56 ಉ3ೆ4ೕ56 7ೕಳ9 7ೕಳ9 7ೕಳ9 7ೕಳ9 0ಾ ಯವ;!ೆ 0ಾ ಯವ;!ೆ 0ಾ 0ಾ ಯವ;!ೆ ಯವ;!ೆ ೆಲಸ ೆಲಸ ೆಲಸ ೆಲಸ ೊ$>ರುವ+ೇ ೊ$>ರುವ+ೇ ೊ$>ರುವ+ೇ ೊ$>ರುವ+ೇ
, .
ತಪ+, ತಪ+, ತಪ+, ತಪ+, ೆಲಸದ?4 ೆಲಸದ?4 ೆಲಸದ?4 ೆಲಸದ?4 ಮುಂದುವAೆಯೇಕು ಮುಂದುವAೆಯೇಕು ಮುಂದುವAೆಯ ಮುಂದುವAೆಯೇಕು ೇಕು ಎಂದAೆ ಎಂದAೆ ಎಂದAೆ ಎಂದAೆ CD CD CD CD ೇಳ9 ೇಳ9 ೇಳ9 ೇಳ9 %ೕನು %ೕನು %ೕನು %ೕನು ಆ
"
ಮೂ3ೆಯ?4 ಮೂ3ೆಯ?4 ಮೂ3ೆಯ?4 ಮೂ3ೆಯ?4 ೆಲದ ೆಲದ ೆಲದ ೆಲದ Dೕ3ೆ Dೕ3ೆ Dೕ3ೆ Dೕ3ೆ ಕುFತುೋ ಕುFತುೋ ಕುFತು ಕುFತುೋ ೋ
The CEO forced me to squat on the floor in his
office-room and then summoned the Production
Manager, Shri Ravasab Galibl, HR, Shri Niranjan,
HR, Shri Naveen, Shri Subbanna, the Lab-Manager
and Shri Ajay, the Production Supervisor to his
office and forced them to give a written-complaint
accusing me as being responsible for Ingoting the
above Heat. Shri Hanumanthappa, the Security
Supervisor, who was also summoned by the CEO,
was asked to snatch away my Mobile Phone to see
that I should not communicate with anybody.
However, Shri Hanumanthappa, could not succeed
to snatch my Mobile .
At this stage, the Production Manager, Shri Ravsab
Galibi, Lab-Manager, Shri Subbanna, both the HRs,
Shriyuths Niranjan and Naveen asked me to fall at the
feet of the CEO and beg pardon. The CEO threatened me
that he would see that I was removed from the service
and until then I will be transferred to Coimbatore Unit of
the Company.
I sincerely requested all the above officers to have a look
at the Bath-Sample Report of the sample taken by Shri
- 16 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
Vinay from me on the fateful day. But, they did not
bother even to have a look at the report stored in
my Mobile, Their aim was to victimize me at the
insistence of the CEO. All of them were trying to
make me a scape-goat with ulterior motives. The
CEO was grossly abusing his office and power to
set up the aforesaid officers against me.
Thereafter, they took me to your Chamber making
false accusations against me. My repeated request
of verifying the Bath Sample has fallen on their
deaf ears."
13. The allegation of the above personnel that when
the said CEO questioned me on the above facts I
reacted the saying- “
ಾನು ಎ/ 6 ಮತು ಎ/ $ ಅಂHಾ Iಾ!ೆ"J
” and went to touch his feet, which he did not
Kಾಡು ೕAಾ
allow are utter falsehoods. Evidently, the CEO has
hatched up this idea to wriggle out from what he said
and done about my caste.
14. I further state that the repeat-test and consequential
report of the above team of officers is certainly an
afterthought to fix me by hook or crook.
The additional charge as stipulated below:-
"You were on duty in second shift on 22.11.2024
commencing at 3 pm and ending at 11 pm being shift In-
charge for melting at Hall no.01. For Heat No.5D493,
Grade: CF8 you were given melting log sheet cum charge
calculation sheet with 1771 kg where you have charged
excess material against the plan and a total of 160 kgs of
excess metal is ingotted which Indicates that you have
deviated melting plan. By using ready moulds for grade
CF8 for pouring of excess martial, loss of material would
have been minimized. Being supervisor in melting
department, it is your responsibility to run the shift as per
plan without rejection or wastage of raw materials to get
optimum utilization of labour, material, machine and
power and the above action shows that you have failed to
perform your duties. Your above conduct has resulted in
loss of raw material, power, labour to the extent of 160
- 17 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
kgs. and financial loss to the company to the extent of
₹61.600" are denied as false and unfounded.
I vehemently deny the above charge as unfounded. I
state that when I assumed charge in the 2nd shift on
22.11.2024, Shri Ravi had already kept ready the scrap
(Heat No.5D493.Gr:CF81 for melting. During the 2nd
shift, I started the process but was not complete till the
end of my Shift. There was about 400 kgs of Returns. Shri
Govindappa, Helper, took charge from me. I had given
clear Instructions to the said Govindappa about the
availability of excess Returns and advised him to save
about 120 kgs from and out of 420 kgs kept aside by me
Thereafter. I do not know what happened. It is only, now,
from the above Show-Cause. Notice, I learn about the use
of excess material for Ingoting. If there is any lapse in the
functioning in the night-shift, the official/officer concerned
who worked in the night-shift is answerable and not me.
15. In the circumstances explained above, I humbly request
you to revisit the matter in its proper perspective and render
justice to me by withdrawing the show-cause notice under
reply.
16. I have been singularly targeted by the CEO time and
again humillating me and my caste with an oblique motive of
harassing, torturing and getting rid of me. The theory
propounded by the CEO is false and fabricated story. The
other officers, referred to in the Show-Cause Notice have
evidently succumbed to the pressure and influence of the
CEO.”
(Emphasis added)
9.2. An Enquiry Officer comes to be appointed, finding the
reply of the complainant unsatisfactory. The Enquiry Officer
issues a notice on 15.01.2025. The complainant challenges the
said notice before the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.2/2025. The
prayer that is sought is as follows:
- 18 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
“ PRAYER
a) To declare that the show cause notice issued by the
respondent is unlawful, unfair, and in violation of the
petitioner's rights under the Industrial Disputes Act,
1947, and the Constitution of India.
b) To direct the respondent to pay compensation for
the emotional and financial distress caused by the
respondent's unlawful actions.
c) To direct the respondent to cease any further caste-
based discrimination against the petitioner and other
employees within the company.
d) Any other relief that this Hon'ble Court deems fit
and proper in the interest of justice.”
(Emphasis added)
9.3. The petitioner seeks an interim order before the
Industrial Tribunal. The interim order is refused by the
following order dated 25.01.2025:
“Counsel for the petitioner filed IA No.1 U/Order 39
Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. Heard the Ld counsel for the
petitioner on IA No.1. Perused the materials on
record. I found no urgency to pass any exparte order
without hearing the respondents on IA No.1. Hence,
issue emergent notice of IA No.1 and copy of the
petition to the respondent No.1 to 4. Returnable by
06.02.2025.”
(Emphasis added)
9.4. Immediately thereafter, springs the impugned
complaint on 19.02.2025. The complaint so registered reads as
follows:
:
“!ೆ
- 19 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
,
ಆರCಕ ಉಪ %;ೕCಕರು
ನೂMIೌ N?ೕ/ OಾPೆ,
ಭ ಾವ .
. ಾ"Tಾರರು
Uರುದg ಆAೋ.ಗಳ9
.
ರU V ಎ V
1) . .
_ೈ U ಮಧುಕ 0ೋಯ
. .,
3ೇJ ಾಗAಾX AಾY ಎ ೆZ
,
ವMವಾjಪಕ % ೇ"ಶಕರು
42
ವಯಸು ವಷ"
ಮ3ಾ \ ಅ3ಾ] ಾM6>ಂ^
ಮ3ಾ \ ಅ3ಾ] ಾM6>ಂ^ ಪ _ೇJ
.,
ಪ_ೇJ ?
., .
? ಇಂಡ6`ಯ ಏ; ಾ
65
ವಯಸು ವಷ"
,
KಾbೇನಹFc
2)
ಪ ೕl 0ೊ]
-
ಭ ಾವ dವeಗf
,
ಎ7 ಕೂM$m nೈAೆಕ>o ಮ3ಾ \ ಅ3ಾ]
, 36
ಾM6>ಂ^ ಪ _ೇJ ? ವಯಸು
ವಷ"
3)
V. ಎ/. ಜಗTೕq , 6.ಇ.ಓ.,
ಮ3ಾ \ ಅ3ಾ] ಾM6>ಂ^ ಪ _ೇJ
, 56
? ವಯಸು ವoಷ
4)
Aಾ_ಾ ಾೇs ಗ?ೕV N ೕnೆC
,
ವMವ ಾjಪಕರು ಮ3ಾ \ ಅ3ಾ]
, 55
ಾM6>ಂ^ ಪ _ೇJ ? ವಯಸು
ವಷ"
5) ,
%ರಂಜ
. .
ಕ ೇ; ೆZ ಅo
ಮ3ಾ \ ಅ3ಾ] ಾM6>ಂ^ ಪ _ೇJ
, 53
? ವಯಸು ವಷ"
KಾನMAೇ
:
Uಷಯ ನನ!ೆ ಮ3ಾ \ ಅ3ಾ] ಾM6>ಂ^ ಪ _ೇJ ?tIೆ\ ನ?4ನ
ಕಂಪ%ಯ ವMವ ಾjಪಕರು %ೕ ದ Kಾನ6ಕ ಮತು ೈuಕ
.
uಂ ೆ ೊಟು> ಾಗೂ 0ಾ %ಂದ ೆ Kಾ ದ ಬ!ೆf
*
- 20 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
,
ಾmt ಾನು ತಮw?4 ದೂರು ಸ?4ಸುವ+ ೇೆಂದAೆ ಾನು ಈ Dೕಲ ಂಡ ಮ3ಾ \
18
ಅ3ಾ] ಾM6>ಂ^ ಪ _ೇJ ?tIೆ\ ಕಂಪ%ಯ?4 ಸುKಾರು ವಷ"ಗFಂದ
N ೕಡC ನ?4 Dೕ?mbಾರಕAಾ ೆಲಸ %ವ"uಸುHಾ ಬಂTದು ಾನು ಾವ+ೇ
.
ತರಹದ 3ೋಪ ೋಷUಲ4ೆ %yೆz{ಂದ ೆಲಸ %ವ"uಸುHಾ ಬಂTರುHೆ ೕೆ
ನನ!ೆ ನನ!ೆ ನನ!ೆ ನನ!ೆ ಸುKಾರು ಸುKಾರು ಸುKಾರು ಸುKಾರು ಎರಡು ಎರಡು ಎರಡು ಎರಡು ವಷ"ಗFಂದ ವಷ"ಗFಂದ ವಷ"ಗFಂದ ವಷ"ಗFಂದ ನನ ನನ ನನ ನನ ಕಂಪ%ಯ?4 ಕಂಪ%ಯ?4 ಕಂಪ%ಯ?4 ಕಂಪ%ಯ?4 ವMವಾjಪಕ ವMವಾjಪಕ %ೇ"ಶAಾದ ವMವ ವMವಾjಪಕ ಾjಪಕ
. .
_ೈ _ೈ _ೈ _ೈ U ಮಧುಕo ಮಧುಕo ಮಧುಕo ಮಧುಕo 0ೋಯ ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ನನ!ೆ ನನ!ೆ ನನ!ೆ ನನ!ೆ Kಾನ6ಕ_ಾ Kಾನ6ಕ_ಾ Kಾನ6ಕ_ಾ Kಾನ6ಕ_ಾ 7ರುಕುಳ 7ರುಕುಳ 7ರುಕುಳ 7ರುಕುಳ KಾಡುHಾ KಾಡುHಾ KಾಡುHಾ KಾಡುHಾ
.
ಬಂTರುHಾ Aೆ ಬಂTರುHಾ Aೆ ಬಂTರುHಾ ಬಂTರುHಾ Aೆ Aೆ ಆದAೆ ಆದAೆ ಆದAೆ ಆದAೆ ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ಈ ಕಂಪ%ಯ?4 ಕಂಪ%ಯ?4 ಕಂಪ%ಯ?4 ಕಂಪ%ಯ?4 ೆಲಸ ೆಲಸ ೆಲಸ ೆಲಸ Kಾ Kಾ Kಾ Kಾ |ೕವನ |ೕವನ |ೕವನ |ೕವನ
ನnೆಸು ರುವ+ದ;ಂದ ನnೆಸು ರುವ+ದ;ಂದ ನnೆಸು ನnೆಸು ರುವ+ದ;ಂದ ರುವ+ದ;ಂದ ಅವರು ಅವರು ಅವರು ಅವರು ಾವ+ೇ ಾವ+ೇ ಾವ+ೇ ಾವ+ೇ 7ರುಕುಳ 7ರುಕುಳ 7ರುಕುಳ 7ರುಕುಳ ೊಟ>ರೂ ೊಟ>ರೂ ೊಟ>ರೂ ೊಟ>ರೂ ಸಹ ಸಹ ಸಹ ಸಹ ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ಾನು ಎಲ4ವನು ಎಲ4ವನು ಎಲ4ವನು ಎಲ4ವನು
.
ಸu6ೊಂಡು ಸu6ೊಂಡು ಸu6 ಸu6ೊಂಡು ೊಂಡು ಬಂTರುHೆ ೕೆ ಬಂTರುHೆ ೕೆ ಬಂTರುHೆ ಬಂTರುHೆ ೕೆ ೕೆ ಆದAೆ ಆದAೆ ಆದAೆ ಆದAೆ ಇ ೕ}ನ ಇ ೕ}ನ ಇ ಇ ೕ}ನ ೕ}ನ Tನಗಳ?4 Tನಗಳ?4 Tನಗಳ?4 Tನಗಳ?4 ನಮw ನಮw ನಮw ನಮw ಕಂಪ%ಯ ಕಂಪ%ಯ ಕಂಪ%ಯ ಕಂಪ%ಯ ವMವಾjಪಕ ವMವಾjಪಕ ವMವ ವMವಾjಪಕ ಾjಪಕ
.
%ೇ"ಶಕAಾದ %ೇ"ಶಕAಾದ % %ೇ"ಶಕAಾದ ೇ"ಶಕAಾದ _ೈ _ೈ _ೈ _ೈ U ಮಧುಕರ ಮಧುಕರ ಮಧುಕರ ಮಧುಕರ 0ೋಯ ರವರ ರವರ ರವರ ಆೇಶದ ರವರ ಆೇಶದ ಆೇಶದ DೕAೆ!ೆ ಆೇಶದ DೕAೆ!ೆ DೕAೆ!ೆ 2024 DೕAೆ!ೆ 2024 2024 ಅಗ/> 2024 ಅಗ/> ಅಗ/> ಅಗ/>
ಂಗಳ9 ಂಗಳ9 ೨ೇ ಂಗಳ9 ಂಗಳ9 ಮಂಗಳ_ಾರTಂದ ಗುರು_ಾರ Aಾ Aಾ ಯವAೆ!ೆ Aಾ ಯವAೆ!ೆ ಪ Aಾ ಯವAೆ!ೆ ಯವAೆ!ೆ ಪ ಪ Tನ ಪ Tನ Tನ ೆಲಸದ Tನ ೆಲಸದ ೆಲಸದ ೆಲಸದ
ಸಮಯದ?4 ಸಮಯದ?4 _ಾಚಮ ಸಮಯದ?4 ಸಮಯದ?4 _ಾಚಮ _ಾಚಮ ೆಲಸ _ಾಚಮ ೆಲಸ ೆಲಸ Kಾಡುವ ೆಲಸ Kಾಡುವ Kಾಡುವ ೊPೆಯ?4ƒೕ Kಾಡುವ ೊPೆಯ?4ƒೕ ೊPೆಯ?4ƒೕ ನನ ನು ೊPೆಯ?4ƒೕ ನನ ನು ನನ ನು ಕುFತುೊಳ9cವಂHೆ ನನ ನು ಕುFತುೊಳ9cವಂHೆ ಕುFತುೊಳ9cವಂHೆ ಕುFತುೊಳ9cವಂHೆ
Kಾ ದ Dೕ?ನ Kಾ ದ Dೕ?ನ ಇತAೆ ಇತAೆ ಆAೋ.ಗಳ9 ಆAೋ.ಗಳ9 ಆ ಸಮಯದ?4 ಸಮಯದ?4 ಮಲ ಮಲ ಮೂತ ಮೂತ Uಸಜ"ೆಗೂ Uಸಜ"ೆಗೂ
Kಾ ದ Kಾ ದ Dೕ?ನ Dೕ?ನ ಇತAೆ ಇತAೆ ಆAೋ.ಗಳ9 ಆAೋ.ಗಳ9 ಸಮಯದ?4 ಸಮಯದ?4 ಮಲ ಮಲ ಮೂತ ಮೂತ Uಸಜ"ೆಗೂ Uಸಜ"ೆಗೂ
ೋಗಲು ೋಗಲು ಸಹ ೋಗಲು ೋಗಲು ಸಹ ಸಹ Vಡೆ ಸಹ Vಡೆ Vಡೆ ಒಂದು Vಡೆ ಒಂದು ಒಂದು „ಾ46>l ಒಂದು „ಾ46>l „ಾ46>l ಬ7ೕJ „ಾ46>l ಬ7ೕJ ಬ7ೕJ ನ?4ƒೕ ಬ7ೕJ ನ?4ƒೕ ನ?4ƒೕ ಮೂತ ನ?4ƒೕ ಮೂತ ಮೂತ Uಸಜ"ೆ ಮೂತ Uಸಜ"ೆ Uಸಜ"ೆ KಾಡುವಂHೆ Uಸಜ"ೆ KಾಡುವಂHೆ KಾಡುವಂHೆ KಾಡುವಂHೆ
ಒHಾ {6ದರು ಒHಾ {6ದರು. . . . UT ಒHಾ {6ದರು ಒHಾ {6ದರು UT UT ಇಲ4ೆ UT ಇಲ4ೆ ಇಲ4ೆ ಅವರು ಇಲ4ೆ ಅವರು ಅವರು ೇF ಅವರು ೇF ೇFದಂHೆƒೕ ೇF ದಂHೆƒೕ ದಂHೆƒೕ ೇFದ ದಂHೆƒೕ ೇFದ ೇFದ ಾನು ೇFದ ಾನು ಾನು ೊೆ!ೆ ಾನು ೊೆ!ೆ ೊೆ!ೆ ನನ!ೆ ೊೆ!ೆ ನನ!ೆ ನನ!ೆ ಈ ನನ!ೆ
;ೕ ;ೕ ಾೆ ;ೕ ;ೕ ಾೆ ಾೆ Kಾನ6ಕ_ಾ ಾೆ Kಾನ6ಕ_ಾ Kಾನ6ಕ_ಾ }ತ Kಾನ6ಕ_ಾ }ತ }ತ uಂೆ }ತ uಂೆ uಂೆ %ೕಡು ರುU; uಂೆ %ೕಡು ರುU; %ೕಡು ರುU; ಎಂದು %ೕಡು ರುU; ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಏರು ಎಂದು ಏರು ಏರು ಧ…%ಯ?4 ಏರು ಧ…%ಯ?4 ಧ…%ಯ?4 ಧ…%ಯ?4
ಕೂ!ಾ ಾಗ ಕೂ!ಾ ಾಗ ಏ eೕ} ಕೂ!ಾ ಾಗ ಕೂ!ಾ ಾಗ eೕ} eೕ} ಸೂ†ೆ eೕ} ಸೂ†ೆ ಸೂ†ೆ ಮಗೆ ಸೂ†ೆ ಮಗೆ ಮಗೆ %ನ ದು ಮಗೆ %ನ ದು %ನ ದು ಅ ಾ{ %ನ ದು ಅ ಾ{ ಅ ಾ{ %ಮwಂHಾ ಅ ಾ{ %ಮwಂHಾ %ಮwಂHಾ eೕ} %ಮwಂHಾ eೕ} eೕ} 0ಾ ಯ eೕ} 0ಾ ಯ 0ಾ ಯ 0ಾ ಯ
ಎ/ ಎ/ 6 ಎ/ ಎ/ ಎ/ ಎ/ ಎ/ $ ಜಾಂಗದವರನು ಎ/ ಜಾಂಗದವರನು ಜಾಂಗದವರನು ನನ ಜಾಂಗದವರನು ನನ ನನ ಕಂಪ%ಯ?4 ನನ ಕಂಪ%ಯ?4 ಕಂಪ%ಯ?4 ೇ;6ೊಂ ರುವ+ದು ಕಂಪ%ಯ?4 ೇ;6ೊಂ ರುವ+ದು ೇ;6ೊಂ ರುವ+ದು ೊಡ‡ ೇ;6ೊಂ ರುವ+ದು ೊಡ‡ ೊಡ‡ ೊಡ‡
ತ„ಾ,{ತು ತ„ಾ,{ತು, , , , ಏೋ ತ„ಾ,{ತು ತ„ಾ,{ತು ಏೋ ಏೋ ೋF ಏೋ ೋF ೋF ಮಗೆ ೋF ಮಗೆ ಮಗೆ %ನ ಮw ಮಗೆ %ನ ಮw %ನ ಮw %ೕನು %ನ ಮw %ೕನು %ೕನು ಕಂಪ%ಯ %ೕನು ಕಂಪ%ಯ ಕಂಪ%ಯ ಾಹುಕರ;!ೆ ಕಂಪ%ಯ ಾಹುಕರ;!ೆ ಾಹುಕರ;!ೆ ಮತು ಾಹುಕರ;!ೆ ಮತು ಮತು ಮತು
ಅವರ ಅವರ ಮಗ%!ೆ ಅವರ ಅವರ ಮಗ%!ೆ ಮಗ%!ೆ ಗುAಾ{6 ಮಗ%!ೆ ಗುAಾ{6 ಗುAಾ{6 ೋಡು ಾ ಗುAಾ{6 ೋಡು ಾ ೋಡು ಾ ? ೋಡು ಾ ? ? ಏಾದರೂ ? ಏಾದರೂ ಏಾದರೂ ೇFದAೆ ಏಾದರೂ ೇFದAೆ ೇFದAೆ Aೋ‰ ೇFದAೆ Aೋ‰ Aೋ‰ ಾ7 Aೋ‰ ಾ7 ಾ7 ಾ7
Kಾತಾಡು ಾ Kಾತಾಡು ಾ ? Kಾತಾಡು ಾ Kಾತಾಡು ಾ ? ? ಇೊ ಂದು ? ಇೊ ಂದು ಇೊ ಂದು ಾ; ಇೊ ಂದು ಾ; ಾ; ಈ ;ೕ ಾ; ;ೕ ;ೕ Kಾ ದAೆ ;ೕ Kಾ ದAೆ Kಾ ದAೆ ಸೂ†ೆ Kಾ ದAೆ ಸೂ†ೆ ಸೂ†ೆ ಮಗೆ ಸೂ†ೆ ಮಗೆ ಮಗೆ %ನ ನು ಮಗೆ %ನ ನು %ನ ನು %ನ ನು
ಕVŠಣದ ಕVŠಣದ ಾM6>ಂ^ ಕVŠಣದ ಕVŠಣದ ಾM6>ಂ^ ಾM6>ಂ^ 0ೊHೆ!ೆ ಾM6>ಂ^ 0ೊHೆ!ೆ 0ೊHೆ!ೆ ಾ7 0ೊHೆ!ೆ ಾ7 ಾ7 „ೆ‹ ಾ7 „ೆ‹ „ೆ‹ Kಾ „ೆ‹ Kಾ Kಾ Vಡು ೕU Kಾ Vಡು ೕU Vಡು ೕU ಉyಾo Vಡು ೕU ಉyಾo ಉyಾo " ಉyಾo " " ಎಂದು " ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ೆದ;6 ಎಂದು ೆದ;6 ೆದ;6 ೆದ;6
ಅ?4ಂದ ಅ?4ಂದ ನನ ನು ಅ?4ಂದ ಅ?4ಂದ ನನ ನು ನನ ನು Vಟು> ನನ ನು ಟು> ಟು> ಕಳ9u6ದರು ಟು> ಕಳ9u6ದರು ಕಳ9u6ದರು ಈ Ubಾರವನು ಾ;ಗೂ Fಸೆ Kಾನ6ಕ_ಾ ಕಳ9u6ದರು
ೊಂTೇೆ. ಅಲ4ೆ Dೕಲಂಡ ವMವಾjಪಕರು ಮತು ಇತರರು ಮನಹ ಮುಂದುವAೆದು
%ಮw ಮೆಯವAೆಾದರೂ ಈ Ubಾರದ?4 ನಮw Uರುದg ದೂರು ೊಟ>Aೆ ಾವ+
ಾವ+ದಕೂ ೆದರವ+Tಲ4 ಎ3ಾ4 N?ೕಸ;ಗೂ ಪ ಆಯುದ ಪ•0ೆ ಸಮಯದ?4
ವಷ"ೆ ಅಂHಾ ದುಡು‡ ೊಟು> ಾ7ೇ_ೆ ಎಂದು ಮಧುಕo 0ೋ], ವMವಾjಪಕ
%ೇ"ಶಕರು, ಮತು ಅವರ ಮಗ ಪ ೕl 0ೋ] ರವರು ನನ ನು ಎಚŽ;6ರುHಾ Aೆ.
ಮನಹ ಇವAೆಲ4ರೂ ಇಂಥಹ ಚಪ,o ಗF!ೆ ಇನು ಮುಂೆ ಈ ಇಂಡ6`ೕ/
- 21 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
ನ?4ಟು> ೊಳcಾರದು ಇಟು>ೊಂಡAೆ ನಮw ಕಂಪ%ಯ ಾಹುಾರ;!ೆ ದ;ದ ಬರುತ ೆ.
ಎಂದು uೕಾ Kಾನ_ಾ ೈTರುHಾ Aೆ.
ಇವನನು eದಲು ಇವನನು eದಲು ೆಲಸTಂದ ೆಲಸTಂದ Hೆ!ೆದುಾ7 Hೆ!ೆದುಾ7 ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ನನ ನನ ಎದು;!ೆ ಎದು;!ೆ ೇFದ ೇFದ Dೕ?ನ Dೕ?ನ
ಇವನನು ಇವನನು eದಲು eದಲು ೆಲಸTಂದ ೆಲಸTಂದ Hೆ!ೆದುಾ7 Hೆ!ೆದುಾ7 ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ನನ ನನ ಎದು;!ೆ ಎದು;!ೆ ೇFದ ೇFದ Dೕ?ನ Dೕ?ನ
ಾಲು ಾಲು ಜನ ಾಲು ಾಲು ಜನ ಜನ ಆAೋ.ಗಳ9 ಜನ ಆAೋ.ಗಳ9 ಆAೋ.ಗಳ9 ಆಗ ಆAೋ.ಗಳ9 ಆಗ ಆಗ ಕಂಪ% ಆಗ ಕಂಪ% ಕಂಪ% ಉಾರ_ಾಗುತ ೆ ಕಂಪ% ಉಾರ_ಾಗುತ ೆ ಉಾರ_ಾಗುತ ೆ ಎಂದು ಉಾರ_ಾಗುತ ೆ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ೇಳ9ವ ಎಂದು ೇಳ9ವ ೇಳ9ವ ಮೂಲಕ ೇಳ9ವ ಮೂಲಕ ಮೂಲಕ ಮೂಲಕ
ಾo ಾo ಇವ%!ೆ ಾo ಾo ಇವ%!ೆ ಇವ%!ೆ ಕೂಡ3ೇ ಇವ%!ೆ ಕೂಡ3ೇ ಕೂಡ3ೇ ೋ$ೕ/ ಕೂಡ3ೇ ೋ$ೕ/ ೋ$ೕ/ 0ಾ; ೋ$ೕ/ 0ಾ; 0ಾ; Kಾ 0ಾ; Kಾ Kಾ ಇ3ಾ•ೆ Kಾ ಇ3ಾ•ೆ ಇ3ಾ•ೆ UbಾರPೆ ಇ3ಾ•ೆ UbಾರPೆ UbಾರPೆ ನnೆ6 UbಾರPೆ ನnೆ6 ನnೆ6 ಈ uಂೆ ನnೆ6 uಂೆ uಂೆ uಂೆ
ೆಲಸTಂದ ೆಲಸTಂದ ಾt"ಕ ೆಲಸTಂದ ೆಲಸTಂದ ಾt"ಕ ಾt"ಕ ಸಂಘದ ಾt"ಕ ಸಂಘದ ಸಂಘದ ಅಧM ಸಂಘದ ಅಧM ಅಧMC dವಣ’ನನು ಅಧM dವಣ’ನನು dವಣ’ನನು ವ0ಾ dವಣ’ನನು ವ0ಾ ವ0ಾ Kಾ ಾ!ೆ ವ0ಾ Kಾ ಾ!ೆ Kಾ ಾ!ೆ ಇವನನು Kಾ ಾ!ೆ ಇವನನು ಇವನನು ಸಹ ಇವನನು ಸಹ ಸಹ ವ0ಾ ಸಹ ವ0ಾ ವ0ಾ ವ0ಾ
Kಾ ಾo ಇ3ಾ4 Kಾ ಾo ಇ3ಾ4 ಅಂದAೆ ಅಂದAೆ ಈ ಕಂಪ%!ೆ ಕಂಪ%!ೆ ಬಹಳ ಬಹಳ ನಷ>_ಾಗುತ ೆ ನಷ>_ಾಗುತ ೆ.. .. ಚಪ,? ಚಪ,? ೊ?ಯುವ ೊ?ಯುವ
Kಾ ಾo Kಾ ಾo ಇ3ಾ4 ಇ3ಾ4 ಅಂದAೆ ಅಂದAೆ ಕಂಪ%!ೆ ಕಂಪ%!ೆ ಬಹಳ ಬಹಳ ನಷ>_ಾಗುತ ೆ ನಷ>_ಾಗುತ ೆ .. .. ಚಪ,? ಚಪ,? ೊ?ಯುವ ೊ?ಯುವ
eೕ}ಗಳ9 eೕ}ಗಳ9 ನಮw eೕ}ಗಳ9 eೕ}ಗಳ9 ನಮw ನಮw ಕಂಪ%ಯ?4 ನಮw ಕಂಪ%ಯ?4 ಕಂಪ%ಯ?4 ೆಲಸ ಕಂಪ%ಯ?4 ೆಲಸ ೆಲಸ Kಾಡುವ+ದ;ಂದ3ೇ ೆಲಸ Kಾಡುವ+ದ;ಂದ3ೇ Kಾಡುವ+ದ;ಂದ3ೇ ಈ ಕಂಪ%!ೆ Kಾಡುವ+ದ;ಂದ3ೇ ಕಂಪ%!ೆ ಕಂಪ%!ೆ ಹಲ_ಾರು ಕಂಪ%!ೆ ಹಲ_ಾರು ಹಲ_ಾರು ಹಲ_ಾರು
HೊಂದAೆ HೊಂದAೆ ಬರು ರುವ+ದು HೊಂದAೆ HೊಂದAೆ ಬರು ರುವ+ದು ಬರು ರುವ+ದು. . . . ಅಂ“ಾ ಬರು ರುವ+ದು ಅಂ“ಾ ಅಂ“ಾ ಕುಂಾಪ+ರದ ಅಂ“ಾ ಕುಂಾಪ+ರದ ಕುಂಾಪ+ರದ ಗಣಪ ಕುಂಾಪ+ರದ ಗಣಪ ಗಣಪ ಭಟ>ರು ಗಣಪ ಭಟ>ರು ಭಟ>ರು ಕ†ೆದ ಭಟ>ರು ಕ†ೆದ ಕ†ೆದ ”ಾ; ಕ†ೆದ ”ಾ; ”ಾ; ಾವ+ ”ಾ; ಾವ+ ಾವ+ ಾವ+
ೋಮ ೋಮ Kಾ 6ದ ೋಮ ೋಮ Kಾ 6ದ Kಾ 6ದ ಸಮಯದ?4 Kಾ 6ದ ಸಮಯದ?4 ಸಮಯದ?4 ೇFದರು ಸಮಯದ?4 ೇFದರು ೇFದರು. . . . ಒDw ೇFದರು ಒDw ಒDw %ೕವ+ ಒDw %ೕವ+ %ೕವ+ ಆ Ubಾರವನು %ೕವ+ Ubಾರವನು Ubಾರವನು ೆನಪ+ Ubಾರವನು ೆನಪ+ ೆನಪ+ ೆನಪ+
Kಾ ೊFc Kಾ ೊFc ಎಂದು Kಾ ೊFc Kಾ ೊFc ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಮಧುಕರ ಎಂದು ಮಧುಕರ ಮಧುಕರ 0ೋ] ಮಧುಕರ 0ೋ] 0ೋ] ಮತು 0ೋ] ಮತು ಮತು - ಅವರ ಮತು ಅವರ ಅವರ ಮಗ ಅವರ ಮಗ ಮಗ ಪ ೕl ಮಗ ಪ ೕl ಪ ೕl 0ೋ] ಪ ೕl 0ೋ] 0ೋ] ರವ;!ೆ 0ೋ] ರವ;!ೆ ರವ;!ೆ ರವ;!ೆ
ೆನಪ+ ೆನಪ+ Kಾ ೆನಪ+ ೆನಪ+ Kಾ Kಾ ಕುಮwಕು Kಾ ಕುಮwಕು ಕುಮwಕು ೊಟ> ಕುಮwಕು ೊಟ> ೊಟ> ಆAೋಪವನು ೊಟ> ಆAೋಪವನು ಆAೋಪವನು ಇತAೆ ಆAೋಪವನು ಇತAೆ ಇತAೆ ಮೂರು ಇತAೆ ಮೂರು ಮೂರು ಜನರು ಮೂರು ಜನರು ಜನರು ಎಸರುHಾ Aೆ ಜನರು ಎಸರುHಾ Aೆ ಎಸರುHಾ Aೆ. ಎಸರುHಾ Aೆ
ಈ Ubಾರದ Ubಾರದ Ubಾರದ ಬ!ೆf Ubಾರದ ಬ!ೆf ಬ!ೆf ನಮw ಬ!ೆf ನಮw ನಮw eೕ} ನಮw eೕ} eೕ} ಸKಾಜದ eೕ} ಸKಾಜದ ಸKಾಜದ ವ {ಂದ ಸKಾಜದ ವ {ಂದ ವ {ಂದ ಒಂದು ವ {ಂದ ಒಂದು ಒಂದು ಮನUಯನು ಒಂದು ಮನUಯನು ಮನUಯನು ಮನUಯನು
Tಾಂಕ:10.02.2025 Tಾಂಕ :10.02.2025 ರಂದು ರಂದು %ೕ ದರೂ %ೕ ದರೂ ಸಹ ಸಹ ಅದೆ ಅದೆ ಾವ+ೇ ಾವ+ೇ 7ಮwತನು 7ಮwತನು ೊಡೆ ೊಡೆ
Tಾಂಕ Tಾಂಕ :10.02.2025 :10.02.2025 ರಂದು ರಂದು %ೕ ದರೂ %ೕ ದರೂ ಸಹ ಸಹ ಅದೆ ಅದೆ ಾವ+ೇ ಾವ+ೇ 7ಮwತನು 7ಮwತನು ೊಡೆ ೊಡೆ
ಪ ೕl ಪ ೕl 0ೋ] ಪ ೕl ಪ ೕl 0ೋ] 0ೋ] ರವರು 0ೋ] ರವರು ರವರು ೇFೇೆಂದAೆ ರವರು ೇFೇೆಂದAೆ ೇFೇೆಂದAೆ, , , , ೆಲಸದ ೇFೇೆಂದAೆ ೆಲಸದ ೆಲಸದ ಸಮಯದ?4 ೆಲಸದ ಸಮಯದ?4 ಸಮಯದ?4 ಆಕ6wಕ_ಾ ಸಮಯದ?4 ಆಕ6wಕ_ಾ ಆಕ6wಕ_ಾ ಸHಾ ಆಕ6wಕ_ಾ ಸHಾ ಸHಾ ಸHಾ
ಎಂಬ ಎಂಬ ಾರಣ ಎಂಬ ಎಂಬ ಾರಣ ಾರಣ ೊಟು> ಾರಣ ೊಟು> ೊಟು> ಈ ಕಂಪ%{ಂದ ೊಟು> ಕಂಪ%{ಂದ ಕಂಪ%{ಂದ %ನ ಕಂಪ%{ಂದ %ನ %ನ ೆಣವನು %ನ ೆಣವನು ೆಣವನು ಮೆ!ೆ ೆಣವನು ಮೆ!ೆ ಮೆ!ೆ ಕಳ9uಸುHೆ ೕ_ೆ ಮೆ!ೆ ಕಳ9uಸುHೆ ೕ_ೆ ಕಳ9uಸುHೆ ೕ_ೆ ಹುyಾ ಕಳ9uಸುHೆ ೕ_ೆ ಹುyಾ ಹುyಾ o ಹುyಾ
ಎಂದು ಎಂದು |ೕವ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು |ೕವ |ೕವ ೆದ;ೆ |ೕವ ೆದ;ೆ ೆದ;ೆ ಾ7ರುHಾ Aೆ ೆದ;ೆ ಾ7ರುHಾ Aೆ ಾ7ರುHಾ Aೆ. ಈ ಎ3ಾ4 UbಾರಗFಂದ ೕವ ಭಯ™ೕತಾT ಾ7ರುHಾ Aೆ
ಾನು ಮತು ನನ ಕುಟುಂಬೆ „ಾಣ ೆದ;ೆ ಇೆ ಎಂದು ಅ; ೇೆ.
ಆದ;ಂದ ಾmt ನನ!ೆ uೕಾಯ_ಾ 0ಾ %ಂದೆ ಮತು ೈuಕ_ಾ ಾಗೂ
Kಾನ6ಕ_ಾ uಂ66ದ Dೕಲಂಡ ಎಲ4ರ Dೕ3ೆ 7tನ eಕದDಯನು ಕೂಡ3ೇ
ಾಖ?6 ಇವAೆಲ4ರ Dೕ3ೆ ಸೂಕ ಾನೂನು ಕಮ ಜರು6 ನನ!ೆ ಾMಯವನುನು
ೊ ಸೇೆಂದು ತಮw?4 ಈ ಮೂಲಕ Uನಂ 6ೊಳ9cHೆ ೕೆ.”
(Emphasis added)
The allegation in the complaint is that, the complainant has
been intimidated, which becomes the ingredients of Section
351(1) of the BNS, for criminal intimidation, which was Section
503 of the IPC, the earlier regime. The petitioners have hurled
- 22 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
abuses taking the name of the caste of the complainant. It is
not in dispute that the complainant has been in the company
for the last 18 years and not an entrant yesterday. Not even
one incident is quoted in the complaint of such hurling of
abusers, prior to the said incident of negligence of the
complainant during the performance of his duty. Therefore, the
complaint will have to be viewed from the lens of the arm-
twisting tactic of the complainant, by misusing of the provisions
of the Act.
10. If the link in the chain of events as observed
hereinabove are considered, the unmistakable inference is that,
the complainant in order to wreck vengeance against the
petitioners for having issued the show cause notice and
appointing an Enquiry Officer to conduct a departmental
enquiry, has registered the impugned crime in gross misuse of
the provisions of the Act. It is un-understandable as to how
the complaint is registered without verification of whether there
has been in fact hurling of abuses or the truth in the complaint.
11. In such circumstances it becomes germane to notice
the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of GULAM
- 23 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
MUSTAFA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 603 , wherein it has held has
follows:
“ 34. Insofar and inasmuch as interference in cases
involving the SC/ST Act is concerned, we may only
point out that a three-Judge Bench of this Court
in Ramawatar v. State of M.P. [ Ramawatar v. State
of M.P. , (2022) 13 SCC 635] , has held that the mere
fact that the offence is covered under a “special
statute” would not inhibit this Court or the High
Court from exercising their respective powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the
Code , in the terms below : (SCC pp. 641-42, paras 16-17)
“ 16 . Ordinarily, when dealing with offences
arising out of special statutes such as the SC/ST Act,
the Court will be extremely circumspect in its
approach. The SC/ST Act has been specifically
enacted to deter acts of indignity, humiliation and
harassment against members of Scheduled Castes
and Scheduled Tribes. The SC/ST Act is also a
recognition of the depressing reality that despite
undertaking several measures, the Scheduled
Castes/Scheduled Tribes continue to be subjected to
various atrocities at the hands of upper castes. The
Courts have to be mindful of the fact that the SC/ST
Act has been enacted keeping in view the express
constitutional safeguards enumerated in Articles 15,
17 and 21 of the Constitution, with a twin-fold
objective of protecting the members of these
vulnerable communities as well as to provide relief
and rehabilitation to the victims of caste-based
atrocities.
17 . On the other hand, where it appears to the
Court that the offence in question, although covered
under the SC/ST Act, is primarily private or civil in
nature, or where the alleged offence has not been
committed on account of the caste of the victim, or
where the continuation of the legal proceedings
would be an abuse of the process of law, the Court
can exercise its powers to quash the proceedings . On
similar lines, when considering a prayer for quashing
on the basis of a compromise/settlement, if the
Court is satisfied that the underlying objective of the
- 24 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
SC/ST Act would not be contravened or diminished
even if the felony in question goes unpunished, the
mere fact that the offence is covered under a
“special statute” would not refrain this Court or the
High Court, from exercising their respective powers
under Article 142 of the Constitution or Section
482CrPC .”
(emphasis supplied)
35. We have bestowed anxious consideration to the
precedents cited by the learned counsel for the
respondents and are of the view that the same are
inapposite to the factual scenario herein. Suffice it would
be to state that while the propositions laid down therein
are not disputed, they do not prejudice the version of the
present appellant. Tapan Kumar Singh [ CBI v. Tapan
Kumar Singh , (2003) 6 SCC 175 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 1305]
and Naresh [ State of U.P. v. Naresh , (2011) 4 SCC 324 :
(2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 216] indicate that the FIR need not be
a detailed one, as it is only to initiate the investigative
process and the police should ordinarily be allowed to
investigate. This is the general rule, but not a fetter on this
Court or the High Court in an appropriate case.
36. What is evincible from the extant case law is that
this Court has been consistent in interfering in such
matters where purely civil disputes, more often than not,
relating to land and/or money are given the colour of
criminality, only for the purposes of exerting extra-judicial
pressure on the party concerned, which, we reiterate, is
nothing but abuse of the process of the court.
37. In the present case, there is a huge, and quite
frankly, unexplained delay of over 60 years in initiating
dispute with regard to the ownership of the land in
question, and the criminal case has been lodged only after
failure to obtain relief in the civil suits, coupled with denial
of relief in the interim therein to Respondent 2/her family
members. It is evident that resort was now being had to
criminal proceedings which, in the considered opinion of
this Court, is with ulterior motives, for oblique reasons and
is a clear case of vengeance.
- 25 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
38. The Court would also note that even if the
allegations are taken to be true on their face value,
it is not discernible that any offence can be said to
have been made out under the SC/ST Act against the
appellant. The complaint and FIR are frivolous,
vexatious and oppressive.
39. This Court would indicate that the officers,
who institute an FIR, based on any complaint, are
duty-bound to be vigilant before invoking any
provision of a very stringent statute, like the SC/ST
Act, which imposes serious penal consequences on
the accused concerned. The officer has to be
satisfied that the provisions he seeks to invoke
prima facie apply to the case at hand. We clarify that
our remarks, in no manner, are to dilute the
applicability of special/stringent statutes, but only
to remind the police not to mechanically apply the
law, dehors reference to the factual position.”
(Emphasis supplied)
11.1. Earlier to the afore-quoted judgment, the Apex
Court in the case of HITESH VERMA v. STATE OF
UTTARAKHAND reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710, has held as
follows:
“…. ….. ….
“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)
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
- 26 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
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. 736 d-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 an instrumentality of the
State, and not by private persons or private
bodies.”
- 27 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
(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 only
- 28 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
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
- 29 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
under: ( Union of India 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
- 30 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
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 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
- 31 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
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 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.””
(Emphasis supplied)
- 32 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
11.2. In the latest judgment of the Apex Court rendered in
the case of GUNJAN ALIAS GIRIJA KUMARI AND OTHERS
v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) AND ANOTHER reported in 2026
SCC OnLine SC 834, has held as follows:
“ 5.1 Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act
read as under,
“ 3. Punishments for offences
atrocities .— 3(1) Whoever, not being a member of
a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,—
(a) to (q) ………..
(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;”
5.1.1 The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the
SC/ST Act can be said to have been committed when
a person not belonging to Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe intentionally insults or intimidates
with an intent to humiliate a person belonging to
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place
within public view. Offence under Section 3(1)(s) of
the SC/ST Act is made out when any member of the
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is abused by
caste name in any place within public view.
5.2 The ingredients of the offences are that
there has to be an intentional insult or intimidation
which has to be with an intent to humiliate a member
of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or that such
member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is
abused by caste name by a person who does not
belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The
- 33 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
common essential for constituting the offence under
both the Sections is that the insult or intimidation
under sub-clause (r) or hurling of abuses under sub-
clause (s) have taken place “in any place within
public view”.
5.3 All the appellants are framed for the offence
under Section 506 read with Section 34, IPC. Section 506,
IPC is about punishment for the offence of criminal
intimidation whereas the offence of criminal intimidation is
defined in Section 503, IPC. It says that whoever threatens
another with any injury to his person, reputation or
property, or to the person or reputation of anyone in whom
that person is interested, and when the same is done with
an intent to cause alarm to that person, commits criminal
intimidation. Section 34, IPC speaks about the acts done by
several persons in furtherance of common intention.
5.4 Before examining the sustainability of the charge
framed and the charge-sheet for its details and contents in
respect of the aforesaid offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and
3(1)(s) of the SC/ST Act, it would be useful to survey few
decisions of this Court which have explained the scope and
purport of the phrase “in any place within public view”
pinpointing that the said requirement is indispensable to be
fulfilled in order that the offence under the SC/ST Act is
constituted.
5.5 In Swaran Singh v. State through Standing
7
Counsel , the place where the informant was insulted
by the appellant by calling him ‘ chamar ’ was one
where he had been standing near the car which was
parked at the gate of the premises of his employer.
This Court held that such place was “a place within
public view”. The argument that the alleged act was
not committed in a public place and hence did not
come within the purview of the offence under the
SC/ST Act was negatived by explaining a fine
distinction between the expression ‘in any place
within public view’ as used in the provision and the
expression ‘public place’.
5.5.1 It was stated that the expression ‘a place
within public view’ could not be confused with the
expression ‘public place’. It was highlighted that a
- 34 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
place can be a private place yet can be 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….”
(Para 28)
5.6 Swaran Singh (supra) came to be relied on
by this Court in Hitesh Verma v. State of
8
Uttarakhand in respect of the concept of ‘place
within public view’ as an ingredient of the offence .
The very observations in Swaran Singh (supra) were
reiterated in paragraph 14 in Hitesh Verma (supra) when
the Court noticed the allegations in the FIR about abusing
the informant. It was stated in the FIR that the
incident of abuse happened within the four walls of
the building of the informant, and it was not the case
of the informant that any member of the public was
present at the time of the incident in the house. The
Court, therefore, ruled that the basic requirement
that the abusive words were uttered in ‘a place
within public view’ was not made out . It was further
noticed that witnesses whose names were appended to the
chargesheet were not the persons present within the four
walls of the building.
5.7 In a more recent decision in Karuppudayar
v. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of
9
Police, Lalgudi Trichy , this Court considered its own
decisions in Swaran Singh (supra) as well as Hitesh
Verma (supra), and elucidated an ironed-out
proposition of law as under,
- 35 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
“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.”
(Para 11)
5.7.1 The Court observed that even by taking
the allegations in the FIR at their face value, what
was alleged was that when the complainant was in
the office, the accused came there, made inquiries
from the complainant and upon not being satisfied,
started abusing the complainant in the name of his
caste and insulted him. Thereafter, three colleagues
of the complainant came later to pacify the accused
and took him away. The Court thus noticed that the
incident had taken place within the four corners of
the chambers of the complainant, which was not “a
place within public view”.
5.8 A decision of the Karnataka High Court in
Sri Rithesh Pais v. State of Karnataka, by Puttur
10
Town P.S. may also be noticed to be relevant, in
which the offence was held to be not made out as the
chargesheet material showed that the hurling of the
abuses had happened in the basement and within the
walls of the basement, holding that the basement of
the building was not “a place within public view”.
5.9 A conclusive statement of law that
emanates from the ratio of the decisions of this Court
discussed above is that in order to make out the
offence under Section 3(1)(r) and/or Section 3(1)(s)
of the SC/ST Act, the occurrence of the incident and
the act and conduct of hurling of caste-based abuses
must take place at “a place within public view”. It
must be a place within the public gaze. Even happens
to be a private place, then in such eventuality a
public-eye must have an access to be able to notice
what happens there or what is taking place that will
only make the “place within public view”.
- 36 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
6. Having appreciated the aspect that the
requirement that the occurrence of the incident of insult or
abuse, towards the member of the Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe has to be in “a place within public view”,
making the same a necessary condition for constituting the
offence under the SC/ST Act, the facts in the present case
may be attentively noticed.
6.1 In the FIR, while referring to the incident of
abuse, on 28.01.2021, the statements were made by
respondent No. 2-complainant that the appellants
were in the habit of harassing and hurling caste-
based slurs at him for over a year and that they used
to do it when some other persons or friends come to
meet him, by using the abusive words from their
balcony or at the ground floor of the house.
6.2 These allegations about the alleged
continuous conduct did not speak of any specific
instance or happening on a particular day and they
are too irrelevant to contribute to make out an
offence under Section 3(1)(r) or Section 3(1)(s) of
the SC/ST Act. It was next stated that because of
such behaviour of the appellants, respondent No. 1-
complainant had to send his son in a separate house.
Such general accusations lead nowhere when it
comes to allegation about the commission of offence.
6.3 As per the averments in the FIR, on the
relevant date that is on 28.01.2021, the altercation
occurred at the time when the appellants were trying
to break open the house of respondent No. 2-
complainant. According to respondent No. 2-
complainant, appellant No. 1 hurled casteist slur in
an abusive way to insult him and his wife. All the
appellants-accused, it was further alleged,
intimidated respondent No. 2-complainant and also
threatened to implicate him in molestation charge.
6.4 It was noticeable that in the complaint/FIR,
nowhere it was stated that the said incident wherein
appellant No. 1 and other appellants are stated to
have abused and threatened respondent No. 1-
complainant, took place where there was a public
gaze. The necessary ingredient of occurrence of the
- 37 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
incident “in a place within public view” was
conspicuously absent.
6.5 Not only that it was not stated that it was
“a place within public view” or that the outsiders or
the members of the family were present at the time,
the details mentioned in the FIR clearly indicated
that the place of occurrence of the incident was
inside the residential house. Referring to the facts
stated and the contents of FIR in this regard, firstly
the FIR is silent about the place of occurrence of the
alleged incident. Secondly, point No. 5(b) in the FIR
mentioned the place of occurrence at the address
stated as “7/38, Ramesh Nagar, New Delhi”, which
was admittedly a residential home. Similarly was
recorded the address of respondent No. 2-
complainant in point No. 6(e) in the FIR to reinforce
that it was the place of residential house where the
occurrence took place. Thirdly, in the charge-sheet
filed before the court, the very residential address
“7/38, Ramesh Nagar, Kirti Nagar, Delhi” was
mentioned to suggest the place of occurrence.
6.6 Respondent No. 2-complainant named two
witnesses, one Love Manchanda and another named
Chandra Prakash. Not only that both were the friends of
respondent No. 2-complainant, from their statements,
nothing could be elicited to show that they witnessed the
incident. Love Manchanda stated that “on 28.12.2020,
Bhim Sain (complainant) asked me to accompany him to
his house where he wanted to take a picture of the locked
lock of his house”. In his statement, Chandra Prakash
stated that “he went to the house at Ramesh Nagar with
the complainant Bhim Sain and when he wanted to open
the lock of his house, the accused interjected”.
6.7 All material facts go to suggest that the
alleged incident took place in a private place and
within four walls of the house of respondent No. 2-
complainant and the appellants, who all are family
members. While the allegation in the FIR was, as
stated, that respondent No. 2-complainant had
been suffering similar kind of incidents since long
and for last one year, it was not stated anything
- 38 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
specific in respect of those earlier incidents with
regard to the incident for which the complaint was
filed, it was not indicated that any independent
member of public was present to witness the
occurrence. Once that is so, to suggest that the
house place was not exposed to public eye or
public gaze, a residential house in no way
becomes “a place within public view”.
7. For any criminal proceedings to initiate, the
starting point is filing of a complaint and
registration of FIR. The complaint/FIR provides
the first account of the happening of events and
incidents alleged as commission of offence. A
reaction and revelation at the first blush is always
natural and therefore becomes creditworthy. The
contents of the complaint giving the initial and
primary description could be treated as more
reliable, for, at the subsequent stage, there would
be a scope and room for improvisation.
8. In State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal11, this
Court laid down the acid test that if the contents
of the FIR, taken at their face value, do not make
out any case against the accused, such an FIR
registered with ulterior motive deserves to be
quashed. In Hitesh Verma (supra), in addition to
the ingredient of “a place within public view”, the
details in the FIR or the charge-sheet failed to
disclose the precise contents of abusive language
employed by the applicant to attract the offence
under the SC/ST Act. In other words, when the
essentials to constitute the offence did not come
out from and were not satisfied in the contents of
the FIR, the offence was held to have not been
made out, rendering the FIR liable to be quashed.
8.1 In Amar Nath Jha v. Nand Kishore Singh12, this
Court noted that the defect in the FIR was in the nature
- 39 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
of non-mentioning of the name of material witness PW-1
which was treated as a basic defect in the hypothesis
portrayed by the prosecution. The Court, in that context,
observed, “although we accept that the FIR need not be
an encyclopaedia of the crime, but absence of certain
essential facts which are conspicuously missing in the
present FIR, point towards suspicion that the crime itself
may have been staged”.
8.2 Also in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya v. State of
Uttar Pradesh13, this Court found absence of
requisite ingredients of the offence under the
SC/ST Act holding that the offence was not
committed at “a place within public view”. It was
observed that even though the appellant in that
case might have abused the complainant, but such
abuse by itself and without anything more does
not warrant subjecting the appellant to face a
trial, particularly in view of the clear absence of
the ingredients necessary to constitute the
offence.
9. Thus, it is trite principle that the FIR
becomes liable in law to be quashed when it, in its
bare reading, does not disclose the necessary
ingredients to constitute the offence alleged
therein. The basic constituents of the offence
alleged in the FIR must stem and stand disclosed
from the contents of the FIR. In order that the FIR
alleging any action is sustainable in law to be a
good and acceptable document to proceed
criminally against any accused named therein or
any person to be made accused on its basis, it
must manifest and reveal basic ingredient of the
offence(s) alleged therein. For an offence to be
made out under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of
the SC/ST Act, as is the question in the instant
case, the requirement that the occurrence has to
- 40 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
be “in a place within public view” is not satisfied,
is missing and absent.
9.1 It could be said that the occurrence of the
incident to become an offence under the SC/ST Act
must have happened “in a place within public
view”, is in a way, a principal requirement
amongst the other ingredients. The other aspects
namely “intentional insult or intimidation” and “an
intent to humiliate”, gathers a kind of intensity
when the insult, intimidation, humiliation or
abusive utterances, as the case may be, takes
place in “a place within public view”, in the
presence of members of the public. The
requirement that the place must be one “within
public view” can be said to be substantiating the
other elements of the offence under the SC/ST
Act. It is therefore a sine qua non for making out
the offence under the SC/ST Act.
10. This leaves the Court to the charge framed under
Section 506 read with Section 34, IPC against all the
appellants. As noted hereinabove, the offence of
criminal intimidation as defined under
Section 503, IPC and made punishable under
Section 506, IPC requires that whoever threatens
another with any injury to his person, reputation or
property and when such threat is with the intent to
cause alarm to that person, commits criminal
intimidation. The “intent to cause alarm” is an pivotal
aspect and consideration to judge whether the offence
of criminal intimidation is made out or not.
10.1 In the present case, even after closely
reading the averments in the complaint, it is
difficult to come to the conclusion that the
appellants-accused exerted threat with an intent
to cause “alarm” to respondent No. 2-complainant.
The submission could be countenanced that the
- 41 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
element of “alarm” to the complainant was
“absent”. Even otherwise, the offence under
Section 506, IPC was alleged against the
appellants to conjunct the same with the offence
alleged under the SC/ST Act which are not made
out.
10.2 As far as the charge under Section 34, IPC is
concerned, nothing is suggested either from the facts or
attendant circumstances that the appellants-accused
had any common intention to do a criminal act and that
they acted in furtherance of such common intention. In
that view, it would be an abuse of the process of law
and would amount to harassment to the appellants to
subject them to the criminal proceedings in relation to
Section 506 read with Section 34, IPC.”
(Emphasis supplied)
What remains are the offences punishable under Sections
351, 352, 127(2) and 190 of the BNS, which were Sections
504, 506, 342 and 149 of the IPC, the earlier regime.
12. The ingredients of the offences punishable under
Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC, is found in Section 503 of the
IPC. The interpretation of what should be the ingredients of
the said offences need not detain this Court for long or delve
deep into the matter. The Apex Court in the case of
MOHAMMAD WAJID AND ANOTHER v. STATE OF U.P .
- 42 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 951 considering the very
offences has held as follows:
“ SECTIONS 503, 504 AND 506 OF THE IPC
24. Chapter XXII of the IPC relates to Criminal
Intimidation, Insult and Annoyance. Section 503 reads
thus:—
“Section 503. Criminal intimidation. —
Whoever threatens another with any injury to
his person, reputation or property, or to the
person or reputation of any one in whom that
person is interested, with intent to cause alarm
to that person, or to cause that person to do any
act which he is not legally bound to do, or to
omit to do any act which that person is legally
entitled to do, as the means of avoiding the
execution of such threat, commits criminal
intimidation.
Explanation.—A threat to injure the
reputation of any deceased person in whom the
person threatened is interested, is within this
section.
Illustration
A, for the purpose of inducing B to resist from
prosecuting a civil suit, threatens to burn B's house. A
is guilty of criminal intimidation.”
25. Section 504 reads thus:—
“ Section 504. Intentional insult with intent
to provoke breach of the peace .—Whoever
intentionally insults, and thereby gives provocation to
any person, intending or knowing it to be likely that
such provocation will cause him to break the public
peace, or to commit any other offence, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or
with both.”
26. Section 506 reads thus:—
- 43 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
“ Section 506. Punishment for criminal
intimidation. —Whoever commits, the offence of
criminal intimidation shall be punished with
imprisonment of either description for a term which
may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both;
If threat be to cause death or grievous
hurt, etc. —And if the threat be to cause death or
grievous hurt, or to cause the destruction of any
property by fire, or to cause an offence punishable
with death or imprisonment for life, or with
imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven
years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be
punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years, or with fine,
or with both.”
27. An offence under Section 503 has
following essentials:—
1) Threatening a person with any injury;
(i) to his person, reputation or property; or
(ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in
whom that person is interested.
2) The threat must be with intent;
(i) to cause alarm to that person; or
(ii) to cause that person to do any act which
he is not legally bound to do as the means
of avoiding the execution of such threat;
or
(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act
which that person is legally entitled to do
as the means of avoiding the execution of
such threat.
28. Section 504 of the IPC contemplates
intentionally insulting a person and thereby
provoking such person insulted to breach the
peace or intentionally insulting a person knowing
it to be likely that the person insulted may be
provoked so as to cause a breach of the public
peace or to commit any other offence. Mere abuse
may not come within the purview of the section.
- 44 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
But, the words of abuse in a particular case might
amount to an intentional insult provoking the
person insulted to commit a breach of the public
peace or to commit any other offence. If abusive
language is used intentionally and is of such a
nature as would in the ordinary course of events
lead the person insulted to break the peace or to
commit an offence under the law, the case is not
taken away from the purview of the Section
merely because the insulted person did not
actually break the peace or commit any offence
having exercised self control or having been
subjected to abject terror by the offender. In
judging whether particular abusive language is
attracted by Section 504, IPC, the court has to
find out what, in the ordinary circumstances,
would be the effect of the abusive language used
and not what the complainant actually did as a
result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or cool
temperament or sense of discipline. It is the
ordinary general nature of the abusive language
that is the test for considering whether the
abusive language is an intentional insult likely to
provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of
the peace and not the particular conduct or
temperament of the complainant.
29. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or
insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult
within the meaning of Section 504, IPC if it does
not have the necessary element of being likely to
incite the person insulted to commit a breach of
the peace of an offence and the other element of
the accused intending to provoke the person
insulted to commit a breach of the peace or
knowing that the person insulted is likely to
commit a breach of the peace. Each case of
abusive language shall have to be decided in the
light of the facts and circumstances of that case
and there cannot be a general proposition that no
one commits an offence under Section 504, IPC if
he merely uses abusive language against the
complainant. In King Emperor v. Chunnibhai
Dayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR 78, a Division Bench
of the Bombay High Court pointed out that:—
- 45 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
“To constitute an offence under Section 504, I.P.C. it
is sufficient if the insult is of a kind calculated to cause
the other party to lose his temper and say or do
something violent. Public peace can be broken by
angry words as well as deeds.”
(Emphasis supplied)
30. A bare perusal of Section 506 of
the IPC makes it clear that a part of it relates to
criminal intimidation. Before an offence of criminal
intimidation is made out, it must be established that the
accused had an intention to cause alarm to the
complainant.
31. In the facts and circumstances of the
case and more particularly, considering the nature
of the allegations levelled in the FIR, a prima
facie case to constitute the offence punishable
under Section 506 of the IPC may probably could
be said to have been disclosed but not under
Section 504 of the IPC. The allegations with
respect to the offence punishable under
Section 504 of the IPC can also be looked at from
a different perspective. In the FIR, all that the
first informant has stated is that abusive language
was used by the accused persons. What exactly
was uttered in the form of abuses is not stated in
the FIR. One of the essential elements, as
discussed above, constituting an offence under
Section 504 of the IPC is that there should have
been an act or conduct amounting to intentional
insult. Where that act is the use of the abusive
words, it is necessary to know what those words
were in order to decide whether the use of those
words amounted to intentional insult. In the
absence of these words, it is not possible to
decide whether the ingredient of intentional insult
is present.”
(Emphasis supplied)
If the elucidation of the law laid down by the Apex Court
in the afore-quoted judgments is pitted against the facts
- 46 -
NC: 2026:KHC:26352
CRL.P No. 3478 of 2025
C/W CRL.P No. 2990 of 2025
HC-KAR
obtaining in the case at hand, none of the offences are made
out and the proceedings are initiated in gross misuse of the
provisions of the Act and the BNS, 2023. The unmistakable
inference that could be drawn is the obliteration of the crime
registered against these petitioners, failing which, it would run
foul of the afore-quoted judgments, become an abuse of
process of law and result in miscarriage of justice.
13. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
a. The criminal petitions stand allowed.
b. The Crime No.39/2025, now pending before the IV
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shivamogga
(sitting at Bhadravathi), qua the petitioners, stand
quashed.
Sd/-
(M.NAGAPRASANNA)
JUDGE
nvj
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30