SUNIL S/ SAHADEV CHOURI vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18344
CRL.P No. 100622 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020031002024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT DHARWAD
RD
DATED THIS THE 3 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 100622 OF 2024
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
SUNIL S/O. SAHADEV CHOURI,
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. MILITARY,
R/O. DEVARAYI VILLAGE,
TALUKA KHANAPUR,
DISTRICT. BELAGAVI.
Digitally
signed by
SUSHMA
LAKSHMI B
S
Location:
High Court
of Karnataka
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SRINIVAS B.NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH-580011,
THROUGH KHANAPUR POLICE STATION,
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18344
CRL.P No. 100622 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020031002024
DISTRICT. BELAGAVI.
2. SAVITRI W/O. THANAJI KAMBLE,
AGE. 50 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER,
R/O. MARUTI GALLI, TALUKA. KHANAPUR,
DISTRICT. BELAGAVI-591302.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. CHETAN S. BIRAJ, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
----
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO, QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS
AGAINST THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.2 IS CONCERN IN (IN
CRIME NO.08/2023 KHANAPUR POLICE STATION) SPL. CASE
NO.169/2023 ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, BELAGAVI REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 341, 504, 506 OF IPC AND
UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2) (VA) OF SC/ST ACT,
2015, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18344
CRL.P No. 100622 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020031002024
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH)
1. The petitioner/accused No.2 is before this Court
seeking to quash entire proceedings in Spl.C.
No.169/2023, arising out of Crime No.8/2023 of
respondent-police, pending on the file of III Addl. District
and Sessions Judge, Belagavi for the offence under
Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST Act 2015.
Brief facts of the case:
2. The case of the prosecution is that a complaint
came to be registered by the complainant viz., Smt.
Savithri Tahanaji Kamble, stating that she had gone to
Gram Panchayat office to obtain Form No.6. At that time,
accused No.1 who was working as a computer operator in
Gram panchayat abused her by referring to her caste and
also assaulted on her cheek and sent her. The matter had
been pacified by the intervention of the elders. In the
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18344
CRL.P No. 100622 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020031002024
meantime, the accused No.2 who was working in the
military came to his village. On 02.01.2023 at about 3.00
p.m., while the complainant and her husband were
proceedings from their land at Gotgal from Devarauyi
Village, accused No.2 allegedly assaulted them and also
threatened them with dire consequences. Therefore, a
complaint came to be registered against accused Nos. 1
and 2. The respondent-police after conducting
investigation, submitted the charge sheet.
3. Heard Sri Srinivas B Naik learned counsel for
the petitioner and Sri. Jairam Siddi, learned High Court
Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and Sri
Chetana S Biragi, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
4. It is the submission of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that, the petitioner is innocent of the alleged
offences and he has not uttered anything in respect of
alleged caste of the complainant.
5. It is further submitted that the petitioner serves
in the military, the complainant has falsely implicated him
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18344
CRL.P No. 100622 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020031002024
with malafide intention to wreak vengeance against the
family in connection with the previous complaint lodged
against accused No.1. None of the independent witnesses
were present at the time of alleged incident had taken
place. Though C.Ws. No. 7 and 8 are stated to be the
eyewitnesses to the incident. Even on going through their
statements, it would not give any justification to invoke
the provisions under Section SC/ST (POA) Act.
6. The said CW7 in her statement made before the
police had stated that she had received the information
from the complainant regarding the incident. As such, the
petitioner has successfully pointed out that CWs 7 and 8
are not the eyewitness to the incident. Making such
submissions, he prays to allow the petition.
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader for respondent - State vehemently submitted that
the complainant belong to scheduled caste and has been
insulted by both the accused on two occasions. In fact, the
present petitioner insulted by naming the caste in the
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18344
CRL.P No. 100622 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020031002024
public. There are two eyewitness to the incident. The
matter required full fledged trial. At this stage, it is not
appropriate to grant the relief as prayed for. Making such
submissions, he prays to reject the petition.
8. Having heard the learned counsel for the
respective parties and on perusal of the averments of the
charge sheet, it makes clear that the complainant in a
earlier occasion had quarrelled with accused No.1 while he
was discharging his duties as computer operator in the
gram panchayat office. She lodged a complaint before the
police and the matter had been pacified at the intervention
of the villagers. The present complaint relating to a
second incident allegedly committed by the present
petitioner. Though, CWs 7 and 8 are the eye witnesses to
the incident, they came after alleged quarrel was stopped.
Consequently, it can be inferred that they are not the
eyewitness to the incident. However, they are the hearsay
witnesses.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18344
CRL.P No. 100622 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020031002024
9. Prima-facie though the averments of the
complaint would indicate that the present petitioner
abused and insulted the complainant by naming her caste
except complainant and her husband, no independent
witness were present at the time of the incident. If such
word is taken as true, obviously it can be inferred the said
complaint has been filed to knock the petitioner down.
10. In the light of the aforesaid observations, I
proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
allowed.
(i) The petition is
(ii) Entire proceedings in Spl.C.
No.169/2023, arising out of Crime
No.8/2023 of respondent-police, pending on
the file of III Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Belagavi for the offence under
Sections 341, 504 and 506 of IPC and
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-D:18344
CRL.P No. 100622 of 2024
CNR: KAHC020031002024
Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(Va) of SC/ST
Act 2015 is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
(S.RACHAIAH)
JUDGE
JS/-
MRK/CT: UMD
List No.: 19 Sl No.: 2