SRI. MANJESH B vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

1
Reserved on : 07.04.2026
Pronounced on : 25.04.2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

TH
DATED THIS THE 25 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
TH
7 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
nd
spot, the 2 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
nd
aware of the caste of the 2 respondent, accused No.1 held him by
his collar and along with the petitioner indulged in assault and
nd
caused injuries. On the next day, the 2 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
nd
appearing for the complainant/2 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
st
for the 1 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,
ಆರಕ ೕ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<!ೋ" ರವರುಗ0ೆ ಅ,ಾ5ಚ5 ಶಬGಗಂದ
	!ೈದು, IಾJ ಂಧLೆ MಾN, ಹ7ೆ MಾN Oಾ1ಣ !ೆದ>ೆ 2ಾPರುವ ಬ0ೆQ
	ದೂರು.

	*****

Cೕಲ&ಂಡ "ಷಯ>ೆ& ಸಂಬಂRSದಂೆ ತಮT ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ,ೇRS>ೊಳVವ(WೇLೆಂದ=ೆ,
ಮಂಡ5 67ೆ, ಮಳವ ಾಲೂಕು, ಕಸ!ಾ 2ೋಬ, IೋXಪ(ರ 0ಾ1ಮದ ಸ,ೆY ನಂ.52 ರ ಸ>ಾY
Iಾಗದ ಅಗಸನಪ(ರ 0ಾ1ಮದ =ಾಜ @ ಆS[ =ಾಜ #$ \ವಂ0ೇ0ೌಡ, ಮಂIೇ^ @ ಮಂಜು
#$ ಬಸವಂ0ೇ0ೌಡ ರವರುಗಳV _Lಾಂಕ 25-06-2024 ರಂದು ಸಂIೆ 4.00 ಗಂ`ೆ ಸಮಯದ
ತಮT IೆS# ಸಂ.KA.51 MR3489 ರ ಮೂಲಕ ಅಕ1ಮ,ಾX ಟ1ಂc(ಗುಂN) 2ೊdೆಯುJW< ಾGಗ ಅ7ೇ

10
,
2ೋಗುJ<ದG 2ೋಗುJ<ದG Lಾನು Lಾನು ಮತು< ಮತು< ಪ(ಟ=ಾಮ ಪ(ಟ=ಾಮ !ೋ" !ೋ" #$ #$ >ೊಳಲಗ >ೊಳಲಗ !ೋ" !ೋ" ೋಮ?ೇಖರ ೋಮ?ೇಖರ #$ #$ ಕೃಷ ಕೃಷ
2ೋಗುJ<ದG 2ೋಗುJ<ದG Lಾನು Lಾನು ಮತು< ಮತು< ಪ(ಟ=ಾಮ ಪ(ಟ=ಾಮ !ೋ" !ೋ" #$ #$ >ೊಳಲಗ >ೊಳಲಗ !ೋ" !ೋ" ೋಮ?ೇಖರ ೋಮ?ೇಖರ #$ #$ ಕೃಷ ಕೃಷ
, , ,
!ೋ" !ೋ" !ೋ" !ೋ" ಉCೕಶ ಉCೕಶ ಉCೕಶ ಉCೕಶ #$ #$ #$ #$ ೋಮಗ ೋಮಗ ೋಮಗ ೋಮಗ !ೋ" !ೋ" !ೋ" !ೋ" ೋಮಣ ೋಮಣ ೋಮಣ ೋಮಣ #$ #$ #$ #$ ಸುಬE ಸುಬE ಸುಬE ಸುಬE !ೋ" !ೋ" !ೋ" !ೋ" ರ" ರ" ರ" ರ" #$ #$ #$ #$ ಮುತ<!ೋ" ಮುತ<!ೋ" ಮುತ<!ೋ" ಮುತ<!ೋ"

ರವರುಗಳV ರವರುಗಳV ರವರುಗಳV ರವರುಗಳV ಸದಯವರನುe ಸದಯವರನುe ಸದ ಸದಯವರನುe ಯವರನುe fಾ>ೇ fಾ>ೇ fಾ>ೇ fಾ>ೇ ಇ ಇ ಇ ಇ ಟ1ಂc ಟ1ಂc ಟ1ಂc ಟ1ಂc 2ೊdೆಸುJ<_Gೕ=ಾ 2ೊdೆಸುJ<_Gೕ=ಾ 2ೊdೆಸುJ<_Gೕ=ಾ 2ೊdೆಸುJ<_Gೕ=ಾ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು >ೇಳ7ಾ >ೇಳ7ಾX >ೇಳ7ಾ >ೇಳ7ಾ ಸದಯವರು ಸದಯವರು ಸದ ಸದಯವರು ಯವರು
,
ನಮTನುe ನಮTನುe ನಮTನುe ನಮTನುe ಕುತು ಕುತು ಕು ಕುತು ತು ಏLೋ ಏLೋ ಏLೋ ಏLೋ ವಡi ವಡi ವಡi ವಡi !ೋ !ೋ !ೋ !ೋ ಮಕ&ಳ ಮಕ&ಳ ಮಕ&ಳ ಮಕ&ಳ ಸೂjೆ ಸೂjೆ ಸೂjೆ ಸೂjೆ ಮಕ&ಳ ಮಕ&ಳ ಮಕ&ಳ ಮಕ&ಳ ನಮTLೆeೕ ನಮTLೆeೕ ನಮTLೆeೕ ನಮTLೆeೕ ಪ1?ೆe ಪ1?ೆe ಪ1?ೆe ಪ1?ೆe MಾN MಾN MಾN MಾN >ೇಳVವ >ೇಳVವ >ೇಳVವ >ೇಳVವ kೈಯY kೈಯY kೈಯY kೈಯY
. @
ಬಂತ ಬಂತ ಬಂತ ಬಂತ ಮ0ೆ ಮ0ೆ ಮ0ೆ ಮ0ೆ ಎ ಎ ಎ ಎ S ಸೂjೆ ಸೂjೆ ಸೂjೆ ಸೂjೆ ಮಕ&ಳ ಮಕ&ಳ ಮಕ&ಳ ಮಕ&ಳ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು !ೈಯುತ< !ೈಯುತ< !ೈಯುತ< !ೈಯುತ< ಬಂದು ಬಂದು ಬಂದು ಬಂದು ನನeನುe ನನeನುe ನನeನುe ನನeನುe =ಾಜ =ಾಜ =ಾಜ =ಾಜ ಆS[ ಆS[ ಆS[ ಆS[ =ಾಜ =ಾಜ =ಾಜ =ಾಜ ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು

ಏ>ಾಏP ಏ>ಾಏP ಏ>ಾಏP ಏ>ಾಏP ನನe ನನe ನನe ನನe ಕುJ<0ೆ ಕುJ<0ೆ ಕುJ<0ೆ ಕುJ<0ೆ ಪlಯನುe ಪlಯನುe ಪlಯನುe ಪlಯನುe mNದು>ೊಂಡ mNದು>ೊಂಡ mNದು>ೊಂಡ mNದು>ೊಂಡ ಏLೋ ಏLೋ ಏLೋ ಏLೋ ವಡi ವಡi ವಡi ವಡi !ೋ !ೋ !ೋ !ೋ ಮಗLೇ ಮಗLೇ ಮಗLೇ ಮಗLೇ ಏLೋ ಏLೋ ಏLೋ ಏLೋ ಂ0ೆ ಂ0ೆ ಂ0ೆ ಂ0ೆ Jಕ Jಕ Jಕ Jಕ

ಮುnೊ&ಂಡು ಮುnೊ&ಂಡು ಮುnೊ&ಂಡು ಮುnೊ&ಂಡು ರೆ<ಯ ರೆ<ಯ ರ ರೆ<ಯ ೆ<ಯ 2ೋಗಲು 2ೋಗಲು 2ೋಗಲು 2ೋಗಲು ಆಗುವ(_ಲ,ೇ ಆಗುವ(_ಲ,ೇ ಆಗುವ(_ಲ ಆಗುವ(_ಲ,ೇ ,ೇ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು 2ೇ 2ೇ 2ೇ 2ೇ >ೈoಂದ >ೈoಂದ >ೈoಂದ >ೈoಂದ ನನe ನನe ನನe ನನe ಕOಾಲ>ೆ& ಕOಾಲ>ೆ& ಕOಾಲ>ೆ& ಕOಾಲ>ೆ&
@
2ೊಡ_ರುಾ<Lೆ 2ೊಡ_ರುಾ<Lೆ 2ೊಡ_ರು 2ೊಡ_ರುಾ<Lೆ ಾ<Lೆ 2ಾಗೂ 2ಾಗೂ 2ಾಗೂ 2ಾಗೂ ನನe ನನe ನನe ನನe ಕುJ<0ೆಯನುe ಕುJ<0ೆಯನುe ಕುJ<0ೆಯನುe ಕುJ<0ೆಯನುe mNದು mNದು mNದು mNದು mಂದ>ೆ& mಂದ>ೆ& mಂದ>ೆ& mಂದ>ೆ& ತರುಾ<Lೆ ತರುಾ<Lೆ ತ ತರುಾ<Lೆ ರುಾ<Lೆ 2ಾಗೂ 2ಾಗೂ 2ಾಗೂ 2ಾಗೂ ಮಂIೇ^ ಮಂIೇ^ ಮಂIೇ^ ಮಂIೇ^ ಮಂಜು ಮಂಜು ಮಂಜು ಮಂಜು

ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ರವರು ನಮTನುe ನಮTನುe ನಮTನುe ನಮTನುe ಉWೆGೕ\S ಉWೆGೕ\S ಉWೆGೕ\S ಉWೆGೕ\S ಈ !ೋ !ೋ !ೋ !ೋ ಮಕ&ಳನುe ಮಕ&ಳನುe ಮಕ&ಳನುe ಮಕ&ಳನುe ಈ0ೇ ಈ0ೇ ಈ0ೇ ಈ0ೇ ಸುಮTLೇ ಸುಮTLೇ ಸುಮTLೇ ಸುಮTLೇ #ಡ!ಾರದು #ಡ!ಾರದು #ಡ!ಾರದು #ಡ!ಾರದು ನಮT ನಮT ನಮT ನಮT ಎದು=ೇ ಎದು=ೇ ಎದು=ೇ ಎದು=ೇ
.
ಂತು>ೊಂಡು ಂತು>ೊಂಡು ಂತು>ೊಂಡು ಂತು>ೊಂಡು Mಾಾಡುವ Mಾಾಡುವ Mಾ Mಾಾಡುವ ಾಡುವ kೈಯY kೈಯY kೈಯY kೈಯY ಬಂ_Wೆ ಬಂ_Wೆ ಬಂ_Wೆ ಬಂ_Wೆ ಈ ಎ ಎ ಎ ಎ S !ೋ !ೋ !ೋ !ೋ ಮಕ&0ೆ ಮಕ&0ೆ ಮಕ& ಮಕ&0ೆ 0ೆ ಇವರನುe ಇವರನುe ಇವರನುe ಇವರನುe ಇ7ೆ ಇ7ೆ ಇ7ೆ ಇ7ೆ 2ೊdೆದು 2ೊdೆದು 2ೊdೆದು 2ೊdೆದು

2ಾಕುವ 2ಾಕುವ 2ಾಕುವ 2ಾಕುವ ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು 2ೇಳVಾ< 2ೇಳVಾ< 2ೇಳV 2ೇಳVಾ< ಾ< ಇಬEರು ಇಬEರು ಇಬEರು ಇಬEರು ಒ`ಾ=ೆ ಒ`ಾ=ೆ ಒ`ಾ=ೆ ಒ`ಾ=ೆ ಬಂದು ಬಂದು ಬಂದು ಬಂದು ನಮT ನಮT ನಮT ನಮT Cೕ7ೆ Cೕ7ೆ Cೕ7ೆ Cೕ7ೆ >ೈಗಂದ >ೈಗಂದ >ೈಗ >ೈಗಂದ ಂದ ಹ7ೆ ಹ7ೆ ಹ7ೆ ಹ7ೆ MಾN MಾN MಾN MಾN ಇಬEರೂ ಇಬEರೂ ಇಬEರೂ ಇಬEರೂ ನನeನುe ನನeನುe ನನeನುe ನನeನುe
,
mNದು>ೊಂಡು mNದು>ೊಂಡು mNದು>ೊಂಡು mNದು>ೊಂಡು ಅ7ೇ ಅ7ೇ ಅ7ೇ ಅ7ೆ ೕ ಇದG ಇದG ಇದG ಇದG ಕಲನುe ಕಲನುe ಕಲ ಕಲನುe ನುe ಎJ<>ೊಂಡು ಎJ<>ೊಂಡು ಎJ<>ೊಂಡು ಎJ<>ೊಂಡು ನನe ನನe ನನe ನನe ತ7ೆ0ೆ ತ7ೆ0ೆ ತ7ೆ0ೆ ತ7ೆ0ೆ 2ಾಗೂ 2ಾಗೂ 2ಾಗೂ 2ಾಗೂ !ೆe0ೆ !ೆe0ೆ !ೆ !ೆe0ೆ e0ೆ >ಾಲುಗ0ೆ >ಾಲುಗ0ೆ >ಾಲುಗ >ಾಲುಗ0ೆ 0ೆ Jೕವ1,ಾX Jೕವ1,ಾX Jೕವ1,ಾX Jೕವ1,ಾX

2ೊdೆದು 2ೊdೆದು 2ೊdೆದು 2ೊdೆದು ರಕ<0ಾಯ ರಕ<0ಾಯ ರಕ<0ಾಯ ರಕ<0ಾಯ MಾNರುಾ<=ೆ MಾNರುಾ<=ೆ MಾNರು MಾNರುಾ<=ೆ ಾ<=ೆ 2ಾಗೂ 2ಾಗೂ 2ಾಗೂ 2ಾಗೂ ನನeನುe ನನeನುe ನನeನುe ನನeನುe >ೆಳ>ೆ& >ೆಳ>ೆ& >ೆಳ>ೆ& >ೆಳ>ೆ& ತ ತ ತ ತ Lೆಲ>ೆ& Lೆಲ>ೆ& Lೆಲ>ೆ& Lೆಲ>ೆ& >ೆಡ" >ೆಡ" >ೆಡ" >ೆಡ" >ಾಂದ >ಾಂದ >ಾ >ಾಂದ ಂದ 2ೊ_Gರುಾ<=ೆ 2ೊ_Gರುಾ<=ೆ 2ೊ_Gರು 2ೊ_Gರುಾ<=ೆ ಾ<=ೆ
, ,
2ಾಗೂ 2ಾಗೂ ಪ(ಟ=ಾಮ ಪ(ಟ=ಾಮ !ೋ" !ೋ" #$ #$ >ೊಳಲಗ >ೊಳಲಗ !ೋ" !ೋ" ೋಮ?ೇಖರ ೋಮ?ೇಖರ #$ #$ ಕೃಷ ಕೃಷ !ೋ" !ೋ" ಉCೕಶ ಉCೕಶ #$ #$
2ಾಗೂ 2ಾಗೂ ಪ(ಟ=ಾಮ ಪ(ಟ=ಾಮ !ೋ" !ೋ" #$ #$ >ೊಳಲಗ >ೊಳಲಗ !ೋ" !ೋ" ೋಮ?ೇಖರ ೋಮ?ೇಖರ #$ #$ ಕೃಷ ಕೃಷ !ೋ" !ೋ" ಉCೕಶ ಉCೕಶ #$ #$
, ,
ೋಮಗ ೋಮಗ ೋಮಗ ೋಮಗ !ೋ" !ೋ" !ೋ" !ೋ" ೋಮಣ ೋಮಣ ೋಮಣ ೋಮಣ #$ #$ #$ #$ ಸುಬE ಸುಬE ಸುಬE ಸುಬE !ೋ" !ೋ" !ೋ" !ೋ" ರ" ರ" ರ" ರ" #$ #$ #$ #$ ಮುತ<!ೋ" ಮುತ<!ೋ" ಮುತ<!ೋ" ಮುತ<!ೋ" ರವರುಗಳ ರವರುಗಳ ರವರುಗಳ ರವರುಗಳ Iೊೆ Iೊೆ Iೊ Iೊೆ ೆ ದುಂdಾ ದುಂdಾ ದುಂdಾ ದುಂdಾ
.
ವತYLೆoಂದ ವತYLೆoಂದ ವತYLೆoಂದ ವತYLೆoಂದ ವJYಸುಾ< ವJYಸುಾ< ವJYಸು ವJYಸುಾ< ಾ< ಅವರುಗಳ ಅವರುಗಳ ಅವರುಗಳ ಅವರುಗಳ Cೕಲು Cೕಲು Cೕಲು Cೕಲು ಸಹ ಸಹ ಸಹ ಸಹ ಹ7ೆ ಹ7ೆ ಹ7ೆ ಹ7ೆ MಾNರುಾ<=ೆ MಾNರುಾ<=ೆ MಾNರು MಾNರುಾ<=ೆ ಾ<=ೆ Lಾ Lಾವ(ಗಳV Lಾ Lಾ ವ(ಗಳV ವ(ಗಳV ವ(ಗಳV ನಮT ನಮT ನಮT ನಮT IಾJಯನುe IಾJಯನುe IಾJಯನುe IಾJಯನುe

mNದು mNದು mNದು mNದು ವಡi=ೆಂದು ವಡi=ೆಂದು ವಡi=ೆಂದು ವಡi=ೆಂದು !ೈಯ!ೇN !ೈಯ!ೇN !ೈಯ!ೇN !ೈಯ!ೇN ಎಂ_ದG>ೆ& ಎಂ_ದG>ೆ& ಎಂ_ದG>ೆ& ಎಂ_ದG>ೆ& ಸದ ಸದ ಸದ ಸದ ರವರುಗಳV ರವರುಗಳV ರವರುಗಳV ರವರುಗಳV Lೇ,ೇನು Lೇ,ೇನು Lೇ,ೇನು Lೇ,ೇನು ಒಕ&ಗರ ಒಕ&ಗರ ಒಕ& ಒಕ&ಗರ ಗರ ವಡi ವಡi ವಡi ವಡi ಸೂjೆ ಸೂjೆ ಸೂjೆ ಸೂjೆ ಮಕ&ಳV ಮಕ&ಳV ಮಕ&ಳV ಮಕ&ಳV
,
ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು ಎಂದು !ೈಯುಾ< !ೈಯುಾ< !ೈಯು !ೈಯುಾ< ಾ< ನಮTಗಳ ನಮTಗಳ ನಮTಗಳ ನಮTಗಳ ಕುJ<0ೆಪlಗಳನುe ಕುJ<0ೆಪlಗಳನುe ಕುJ<0ೆಪlಗಳನುe ಕುJ<0ೆಪlಗಳನುe mNದು>ೊಂಡು mNದು>ೊಂಡು mNದು>ೊಂಡು mNದು>ೊಂಡು ಅವರ ಅವರ ಅವರ ಅವರ ಕOಾಲಕೂ& ಕOಾಲಕೂ& ಕOಾಲಕೂ& ಕOಾಲಕೂ& ಸಹ ಸಹ ಸಹ ಸಹ >ೈಗಂದ >ೈಗಂದ >ೈಗ >ೈಗಂದ ಂದ

2ೊdೆದು 2ೊdೆದು ೕ,ೇLಾದರೂ ೕ,ೇLಾದರೂ ನಮT ನಮT ಬ ಬ ತ7ೆ ತ7ೆ ಎJ< ಎJ< ನdೆದ=ೆ ನdೆದ=ೆ 2ಾಗೂ 2ಾಗೂ ನಮTನುe ನಮTನುe ಪ1\eಸುವ ಪ1\eಸುವ kೈಯY kೈಯY MಾNದ=ೆ MಾNದ=ೆ
2ೊdೆದು 2ೊdೆದು ೕ,ೇLಾದರೂ ೕ,ೇLಾದರೂ ನಮT ನಮT ಬ ಬ ತ7ೆ ತ7ೆ ಎJ< ಎJ< ನdೆದ=ೆ ನdೆದ=ೆ 2ಾಗೂ 2ಾಗೂ ನಮTನುe ನಮTನುe ಪ1\eಸುವ ಪ1\eಸುವ kೈಯY kೈಯY MಾNದ=ೆ MಾNದ=ೆ
.
ಮTನುe ಮTನುe ಮTನುe ಮTನುe 2ೊdೆದು 2ೊdೆದು 2ೊdೆದು 2ೊdೆದು ಾoಸುೆ<ೕ,ೆಂದು ಾoಸುೆ<ೕ,ೆಂದು ಾoಸುೆ<ೕ,ೆಂದು ಾoಸುೆ<ೕ,ೆಂದು Oಾ1ಣ Oಾ1ಣ Oಾ1ಣ Oಾ1ಣ !ೆದ>ೆ !ೆದ>ೆ !ೆದ !ೆದ>ೆ >ೆ 2ಾPರುಾ<=ೆ 2ಾPರುಾ<=ೆ 2ಾPರು 2ಾPರುಾ<=ೆ ಾ<=ೆ 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 67ಾ ಸqೆ1ಯ %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=ಾXರುಾ<=ೆ. 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=ಾXರುಾ<=ೆ, ಆ=ೋyಗಳV MPÀÌ°UÀ (ಪ1ವಗY-3ಎ) IಾJ0ೆ
ೇದವ=ಾXರುಾ<=ೆ, ಾw-01 ಂದ 06 ರವರುಗಳV ಪ\ಷ* IಾJ(!ೋ") ಜLಾಂಗ>ೆ& ೇದವರು
ಎಂಬುದು ಆ=ೋyಗ0ೆ J_ರುತ<Wೆ, _Lಾಂಕ:25-06-2024 ರಂದು ಮWಾ5ಹe 4:00 ಗಂ`ೆ
ಸಮಯದ°è ಾw-01 ರವರು ಜ~ೕನು ಕdೆ 2ೋಗುJW< ಾGಗ IೋXಪ(ರ 0ಾ1ಮದ ಸ,ೇY ನಂ: 56 ರ
ಟ1ಂc(ಗುಂN) 2ೊdೆಯಲು >ೆಎ 51, ಎಂ.ಆ€- 3489ರ Iೆ.S.# IೆS# SದನG ುe ಕಂಡ ಾw-01
ರವರು ಅ7ೇ ಇದ G ಆ=ೋy-01 =ಾಜು @ ಆS[ =ಾಜ, ಆ=ೋy-02 ಮಂIೇ^.# @ ಮಂಜು
ರವರನುe ಉWೇG \S ಏ>ೆ ಇ°è ಟ1ಂc 2ೊdೆದು ನಮ0ೆ ೊಂದ=ೆ >ೊಡುJೕ< ಅಂತ >ೇzÀÝPÉÌ ಆ=ೋy-
01 ರವರು ಏ>ಾಏP ಾP-< 01 ರವರ ಶ‚Y ಕುJ0< ೆ ಪl* ಯನುe mNದು ಎjೆWಾN ಾw-01 ರವರನುe
ಉWೇG \S ಏLೋ ವಡ i ¨ÉÆÃ½ ªÀÄUÀ£ÉÃ, ಏLೋ ಂ0ೆ Jಕ ಮುnೊ&ಂಡು ರ ೆ<ಯ 2ೋಗಲು
ಆಗುವ(_ಲ, ೇ ಎಂದು ತನe ಬಲ >ೈoಂದ ಾw-01 ರವರ Jಡ ಕOಾಲ>ೆ& 2ೊdೆದು ಕುJ0< ೆಯನುe
mNದು mಂದ>ೆ& ತರುಾL< ೆ. ಆಗ ಅ¯ÉèÃ ಇದ G ಆ=ೋy-02 ರವರು ಾw-01 ರವರನುe ಉWೇG \S ಈ
ವಡ i ನನe ಮಕ&ಳನುe mೕ0ೆ ಸುಮTLೆ #ಡ!ಾರದು ನಮT ಎದು=ೇ ಂತು MಾತLಾಡುಾ<=ೆ, ಅಂತ
IಾJಂದLೆ MಾN ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ಆ=ೋy-01 ಮತು <02 ರವರು ಸMಾನ ಉWೇG ಶ_ಂದ ಒl*0ೆ ೇ>ೊಂಡು
ತಮT ತಮT >ೈಗಂದ ಾw-01 ರವರ Cೖ Cೕ7ೆ Sಕ&, Sಕ&, ಕdೆ 2ೊdೆ_ರುಾ=< ೆ. CµÀÖgÀ°è ಜಗಳ
LೋN ಸಳƒ >ೆ& ಓN ಬಂದ ಾw-02 ಂದ 06 ರವರುಗಳV ಾw-01 ರವರನುe ಸMಾkಾನ MಾN
ಆ=ೋy-01 ಮತು < 02 ರವರನುe ಉWೇG \S ಉWೇG \S fಾ>ೆ ಇ°è ಟ1ಂc			2ೊdೆಸುJ_< ೕG =ಾ Lಾವ(
ಜ~ೕ0ೆ 2ೋX ಬರಲು ನಮ0ೆ ಆಗುವ(_ಲ, ೆ ಎಂದು >ೇದ	>G ೆ&	, ಆ=ೋyಗಳV ಏ>ಾಏP ಾw-02
ಂದ 06 ರವರನುe ಉWೇG \S ಏLೋ ವಡ i !ೋ ಮಕ&ಳ, ಸೂjೆ ಮಕ&ಳ ನಮTLೆeೕ ಪ1?ೆe, MಾN
>ೇಳVವ kೈಯY ಬಂಾ ಮ0ೆ ಸೂjೆ ಮಕ&ಳ ಎಂದು !ೈದು ಆ=ೋy-01 ರವರು C¯ÉèÃ ಇದ,G ಒಂದು
ಕ®èನುe >ೈ0ೆ ಎJ>< ೊಂಡು ಾw-01 ರವರ ಹೆಯ ಎಡ{ಾಗ>ೆ&, !ೆe0ೆ 2ಾಗೂ >ಾಲುಗಳ Cೕ7ೆ

12

2ೊdೆದು >ೆಳ>ೆ& ತ, Lೆಲ>ೆ& >ೆಡ" ಆ=ೋy-01 ಮತು < 02 ರವರು ತಮT ತಮT >ಾಂದ ಾw-01
ರವ0ೆ ಒ_Gರುಾ=< ೆ. ಾw-01 ಂದ 06 ರವರುಗಳV IಾJಯನುe mNದು ವಡ=i ೆಂದು !ೈಯ!ೇN
ಎಂ_zÀÝPÉÌ ಆ=ೋy-01 ರವರು ಾw-01 ಂದ 06 ರವರನುe ಉWೇG \S ೕ,ೇನು ಒPÀÌ°ಗರ, ವಡ iಸೂjೆ
ಮಕ&ಳV ೕ,ೇLಾದರೂ ನಮTನುe ಪ1?ೆe MಾNದ=ೆ ಮTನುe 2ೊdೆದು ಾoಸುೇ< ,ೆ ಎಂದು Oಾ1ಣ
¨Éದ>ೆ 2ಾP ಕ®èನುe ಆ¯ÉèÃ #ೕ ಾP ಸಳƒ _ಂದ 2ೊರಟು 2ೋXರುಾ<=ೆ, ಾw-01 ರವರ ಹೆಯ
ಎಡ{ಾಗದ, ಏ`ಾX ರಕ<0ಾಯ,ಾXದು,G ಬಲೊdೆ0ೆ Oೆ`ಾ*X ಾw-01 ರವ0ೆ ಾMಾನ5 ಸ+ರೂಪದ
0ಾಯಗಳV ಉಂ`ಾXರುವ(ದು ಈ >ೇSನ ತ†ೆoಂದ ದೃಢಪl*ರುತW< ೆ. ಆದGಂದ ಸದ ಆ=ೋyಗಳ
"ರುದ t ಕಲಂ ,323, 324, 504, 506 PÀÆqÀ 34 L¦¹ ªÀÄvÀÄ Û PÀ®A .3(1)(r). 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)
ಎ.S/ಎ.l(WೌಜYನ5 ತdೆ) JದುಪG N >ಾoWೆ-2015ರ ೕಾ5 Wೋxಾ=ೋಪಣ ಪತ1ವನುe
ಸS ರುತW< ೆ.”

(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
1
HITESH VERMA v. STATE OF UTTARKHAND 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.<br>The Court held as under:<br>“15. As held by the Supreme Court, the<br>offence must be such so as to attract the offence<br>under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The offence must<br>have been committed against the person on the<br>ground that such person is a member of Scheduled<br>Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the present case,<br>the fact that the deceased was belonging to<br>“Khangar” Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There<br>is no evidence to show that the offence was<br>committed only on the ground that the victim was<br>a member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore,<br>the conviction of the appellant-accused under<br>Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and<br>Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is<br>not sustainable.”		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:<br>(2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 686], SCC p. 797, para 52)<br>“52. There is no presumption that the members<br>of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes may<br>misuse the provisions of law as a class and it is not<br>resorted to by the members of the upper castes or the<br>members of the elite class. For lodging a false report, it<br>cannot be said that the caste of a person is the cause. It<br>is due to the human failing and not due to the caste<br>factor. Caste is not attributable to such an act. On the<br>other hand, members of the Scheduled Castes and<br>Scheduled Tribes due to backwardness hardly muster<br>the courage to lodge even a first information report,<br>much less, a false one. In case it is found to be<br>false/unsubstantiated, it may be due to the faulty<br>investigation or for other various reasons including<br>human failings irrespective of caste factor. There may be<br>certain cases which may be false that can be a ground<br>for interference by the Court, but the law cannot be<br>changed due to such misuse. In such a situation, it can<br>be taken care of in proceeding under Section 482 CrPC.”

20. Later, while examining the constitutionality of the<br>provisions of the amending Act (Central Act 27 of 2018), this<br>Court in a judgment reported as Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union<br>of India [Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC<br>727: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 657] held that proceedings can be<br>quashed under Section 482 of the Code. It was held as under:<br>(SCC p. 751, para 12)<br>“12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise<br>power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the cases to<br>prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameters, as<br>already observed while deciding the review petitions.<br>The legal position is clear, and no argument to the<br>contrary has been raised.”<br>21. In Gorige Pentaiah [Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P.,<br>(2008) 12 SCC 531: (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 446], one of the<br>arguments raised was non-disclosure of the caste of the accused<br>but the facts were almost similar as there was civil dispute<br>between parties pending and the allegation was that the<br>accused has called abuses in the name of the caste of the<br>victim. The High Court herein has misread the judgment of this
		“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<br>humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a<br>Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;<br>(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a<br>Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place<br>within public view;”
		(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 ಹ7ೆ MಾN 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
, .26/6/2024
?ೆŒೕಷ ೆ MಾN>ೊಂಡು ಬಂ_GದುG ಈ ಕೃತ5ದ ಸಂಬಂದ ಈ0ಾಗ7ೇ _Lಾಂಕ ತಮT
,
ೕ ಾೆಯ ಅ`ಾ1Sl >ಾ•GಯN ಪ1ಕರಣವನುe ಸಹ Wಾಖ SದುG ಸದ ಪ1ಕರಣದN

26

	ಮಂIೇ^ #, ರವರು Lಾ5fಾಲಯದ !ೇ‰ ಪdೆದು ಮೆ< ನಮT ಜLಾಂಗದ Cೕ7ೆ ಎಂ_ನಂೆ
	MಾರಾಂJಕ ಹ7ೆMಾNS Oಾ1ಣ!ೆದ>ೆ 2ಾPWಾGLೆ. ಈ0ಾಗ7ೇ ಮಂIೇ^ Cೕ7ೆ Wಾಖ7ಾXರುವ
	ಪ1ಕರಣವ( ತ†ಾ ಹಂತದರುವ(ದಂದ, ಪ1ಕರಣ>ೆ& ಸಂಬಂ_Sದ Iಾಗದ (ಅಂದ=ೆ ನಮT
	ಪu"Yಕರ ಸMಾ_ Cೕ7ೆ ಕಲುಗ ಳನುe 2ಾP, ಸMಾ_ಗಳನುe 2ಾಳV MಾNರುವ Iಾಗ) fಾರು ಕೂಡ
	ಕಲುಗ ಳನುe ೆರವ( Mಾಡ!ಾರWಾX ತ†ಾR>ಾಗಳV ಾPತು < MಾNರುಾ=< ೆ. ಆದ=ೆ ಈಗ ಅಂದ=ೆ
	_Lಾಂಕ: 16-10-2024 ರ ಬುಧ,ಾರ !ೆಳ0ೆ Q ಸುMಾರು 8 ಗಂ`ೆಯ ಸಮಯದ ,ೆಂಕ`ಾಚಲ ಮತು <
	2ೇಮಂ‹ ಇವರುಗಳV `ಾ1ಕ*€ ಮತು < ಮಂIೇ^ # ರವ0ೆ ೇದ Iೆ.S.# ಯ ಮು†ಾಂತರ
	ಕಲುಗ ಳನುe ತುಂಬುJರ< ುವ ಸಮಯದ Lಾವ( 2ೋX ತdೆWೆವ(, ಅಷ*ರ7ಾಗ7ೇ ಸMಾ_ಯ Cೕ7ೇ
	ಸು_ರುವ ಕಲುಗ ಳನುe ಮೂರು `ಾ1ಕ*€ 7ೋ[ ಕಲುಗ ಳನುe !ೇ=ೆಕdೆ ಾXSರುಾ<=ೆ.

	ನಂತರ =ಾJ1 10.30ರ ಸಮಯ>ೆ& ಮಂIೇ^ # ರವರ ಅಪqೆಯಂೆ, ,ೆಂಕ`ಾಚಲ ಮತು <
	2ೇಮಂ‹ ಇವರುಗಳV ಉCೕ^ ಅವರ ಮLೆಯ ಹJರ< ಬಂದು ಗ7ಾ`ೆ MಾN Wೊೆ ಯ
	2ೊN_ರುಾ=< ೆ, ಅದನುe ಪ1\eಸಲು ೋಮಣ !ೋ" ಆದ Lಾನು 2ೋX >ೇದ>ೆ&, ೕ ಏನನುe
	>ೇಳವ(ದು ಎಂದು !ಾo0ೆ ಬಂದಂೆ !ೈದು 2ೊdೆದು ಸೂ&ಟ€ Cೕ7ೆ ಹJ<S 2ೊdೆ_ರುಾ=< ೆ. (0ಾN
	ನಂಬ€. 2ೇಮಂ‹ >ೆ.ಎ.53 ಇ.ಎ\|.4215 ,ೆಂಕ`ಾಚಲ >ೆ.ಎ.55 2ೆc 6165, Iೆ.S.#. ನಂಬ€
	>ೆ.ಎ.51 ಎŽ.ಆ€.3489)

	ಉCೕ^ Cೕ7ೆ MಾರಾಂJಕ ಹ7ೆ MಾN, ಎWೆಯ Cೕ7ೆ ಮತು <ತ7ೆಯ Cೕ7ೆ Wೊೆ ಯ
	2ೊdೆದು, ಮಂIೇ^ # ಇವರ Cೕ7ೆ ೕವ( ೕ ಾೆ0ೆ ದೂರು ೕಡುJ=< ಾ? ಮTನುe ಸುಮTLೆ
	#ಡುವ(_ಲ. ಮTನುe ಾmಸುವ(WಾX ಮ0ೆ ಉ0ಾಲ"ಲ ಎಂದ ಅ,ಾ5ಚ5 ಶಬ_G ಂದ !ೈದು !ೈದು
	2ೊdೆ_ರುಾ=< ೆ. ಈ ಗ7ಾ`ೆ Mಾಡಲು ಮೂಲ >ಾರಣಕತYರು ಮಂIೇ^ # #$ ಬಸವಂ0ೇ0ೌಡ,
	ಮಂIೇ^ ರವರು ,ೆಂಕ`ಾಚಲ ಮತು < 2ೇಮಂ‹ ರವ0ೆ ಹಣದ ಆ ೆ ೋS, ಅವರ ಮು†ಾಂತರ
	ನಮT Cೕ7ೆ MಾರಾಂJಕ ಹ7ೆ MಾNS Oಾ1ಣ !ೆದ>ೆ 2ಾPರುಾ<=ೆ. ಮಂIೇ^ # ರವರು ಸMಾR
	Cೕ7ೆ ಕಲುಗ ಳನುe 2ಾP ಸMಾRಯನುe 2ಾಳV MಾN IಾJಂದLೆ MಾNರುವ ಸಂಬಂದ, Lಾಗೕಕ
	ಹಕು& Iಾ WೇYಶLಾಲಯ !ೆಂಗಳ}ರು ಇ ಪ1ಕರಣವ( Wಾಖ7ಾX ತ†ಾಹಂತದರ ುವ(ದಂದ,
	ಾLಾಶ Mಾಡಲು ಮಂIೇ^ # ರವರು ಈ ೕJಯ ಕೃತ5ವನುe ಎಸXರುಾ=< ೆ. ಆದGಂದ >ೋಡ7ೇ
	ಮಂIೇ^ # ರವರನುe ಬಂRಸ!ೇಕು, 2ಾಗೂ ಕjೆದ 33 ವಷYಗಂದ ರಂತರ,ಾX ಮಂಡ5 67ೆ,
	ಮಳವ ಾಲೂಕ ು, ಆಗಸನ ಪ(ರ 0ಾ1ಮದ ದತರ Cೕ7ೆ ಮಂIೇ^ # ರವರು ನdೆಸುJ<ರುವ
	Pರುಕುಳ, ಹ7ೆ, WೌಜYನ5, IಾJ ಂದLೆ, Oಾ1ಣ !ೆದ>ೆ ?ೆŒೕಷೆ Mಾಡುತ < ಬಂ_WಾLG ೆ. ದಯ"ಟು*
	ನಮ0ೆ ರೆ >ೊಟು* ಮಂIೇ^ # 2ಾಗೂ ಅವನ ಸಹಚರರನುe ಬಂ_ಸ!ೇ>ೆಂದು ತಮT
	Oಾ1vYS>ೊಳVೆ,< ೆ.”

(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<br>relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the<br>principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions<br>relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article<br>226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which<br>we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following<br>categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power<br>could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any<br>court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may<br>not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and<br>sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid<br>formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases<br>wherein such power should be exercised.<br>(1) Where the allegations made in the first information<br>report or the complaint, even if they are taken at<br>their face value and accepted in their entirety do<br>not prima facie constitute any offence or make out<br>a case against the accused.<br>(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and<br>other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not<br>disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation<br>by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except<br>under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of<br>Section 155(2) of the Code.<br>(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or<br>complaint and the evidence collected in support of the<br>same do not disclose the commission of any offence and<br>make out a case against the accused.<br>(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a<br>cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable		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<br>without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under<br>Section 155(2) of the Code.<br>(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint<br>are so absurd and inherently improbable on the<br>basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a<br>just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for<br>proceeding against the accused.<br>(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of<br>the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under<br>which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution<br>and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is<br>a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act,<br>providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the<br>aggrieved party.<br>(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with<br>mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously<br>instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance<br>on the accused and with a view to spite him due to<br>private and personal grudge.”		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:

O R D E R

(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

Full Judgment Text