- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3229 CRL.P No. 200997 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200997 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: SHANKARAGOUD PATIL S/O SIDDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O VAJRAHANUMAN NAGAR, VIJAYAPUR-586109. …PETITIONER (BY SRI KULKARNI SHRINATH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY JALANAGAR POLICE STATION, VIJAYAPURA, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, HIGH COURT BUILDING, KALABURAGI-585102. 2. MALLU CHAVAN S/O SIDDU, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/O UKKALI TANDA, BASAVAN BAGEWADI, TALUK AND DISTRICT: VIJAYAPURA-586203. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1) Digitally signed by RENUKA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3229 CRL.P No. 200997 of 2025 THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO, QUASH THE FIR AND ALL FURTHER INVESTIGATION IN CRIME NO.78/2025 PERTAINING TO THE PETITIONER REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT/JALANAGAR POLICE STATION, VIJAYAPUR FOR THE OFFENCE MADE PUNISHABLE UNDER SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015 (U/SEC 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(VA) AND SEC,\. 352, 115(2) OF BNS, 2023, PENDING BEFORE THE COURT OF THE 2ND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS (SPECIAL) COURT, BIJAPUR. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA) Heard Sri Kulkarni Shrinath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State. 2. This petition is filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS, 2023’) with the following prayer: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3229 CRL.P No. 200997 of 2025 “Wherefore, this Hon’ble Court is respectfully prayed: To Quash the FIR and all further investigation in Crime No.78/2025, pertaining to the Petitioner, registered by the 1st Respondent/ Jalanagar Police Station, Vijayapur for the offence made punishable under SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) amendment Act 2015 (U/Sec 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) and Sec. 352, 115(2) of BNS 2023 pending before the Court of the 2nd Addl. District & Sessions (Special) Court, Bijapur, in the interest of Justice.” 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petitioner are as under: Respondent No.2 lodged a complaint with Jalanagar Police, Vijayapur on 14.06.2025 which was registered in Crime No.78/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short, ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’) and Sections 352, 115(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNS, 2023’). - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3229 CRL.P No. 200997 of 2025 4. Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that: 4.1. The complainant was working under the present petitioner for laying the cable of JIO company. It is also alleged that the accused is very close friend and therefore he was working under him for long. It is further found from the complaint averments that there were financial dues between the complainant and the present petitioner. In that regard, the complainant demanded the money repeatedly. Petitioner said to have replied to the complainant that bill raised by him has not been honoured by the JIO company and therefore complainant should invest his money and proceed with the work. 4.2. Having entertained a doubt about the said reply, the complainant said to have visited the office of the JIO company which has entrusted the work. On enquiry there, he came to know that the bill was cleared long back - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3229 CRL.P No. 200997 of 2025 but petitioner failed to pay the outstanding amount to the complainant. 4.3. In that regard, on 19.05.2025 complainant along with Gudusab Syed Sab Jamadar went to the house of the complainant and demanded the money at about 11:30 AM. The petitioner said to have threatened the complainant by saying that he had brought Muslim to demand the money and abused the complainant in filthy language taking out the caste name resulting in insult to the complainant and when petitioner tried to assault him, he requested him that not to abuse him and to assault him and again demanded the money. 4.4. At that juncture, accused said to have told the complainant that there is no money payable to him and he did not give any money to him and abused him in filthy language again and pushed him. It is Gudusab, who pacified the quarrel and they went away from the spot. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3229 CRL.P No. 200997 of 2025 5. In respect of the incident that occurred on 19.05.2025, a complaint came to be filed on 14.06.2025 and thereafter the police have registered the case and are investigating the matter. 6. Very registration of the FIR is called in question in this petition on following grounds: • It is respectfully submitted that, the Petitioner is innocent of the alleged offences and he has been falsely implicated/ framed by the Jalanagar PS/ 1st Respondent. • It is respectfully submitted that, that the alleged incident has taken place on 19.05.2025 wherein he has approached the 1st Respondent/ Jalanagar Police after almost 26 days delay which is an incessant delay and nothing but an after though approach and just an attempt by the Mallu Siddu Chavan/ 2nd Respondent, to harass and humiliate the petitioner for making wrongful gains. • It is respectfully submitted that, the Mallu Siddu Chavan/ 2nd Respondent, is making a false and frivolous allegation against the petitioner while to settle business dispute & 2nd respondent is actively trying to invoke and fix - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3229 CRL.P No. 200997 of 2025 petitioner in a false case by influencing the Jalanagar PS/ 1st Respondent, for the offences made punishable under SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) amendment Act 2015 (U/Sec 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)) & Sec. 352, 115(2) of BNS 2023. • It is respectfully submitted that, no other petition is filed before any other Court or Forum other than this petition before this Hon'ble Court seeking the same relief. 7. Sri Shrinath Kulkarni, learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the petition contended that the ingredients of the complaint do not warrant registration of the FIR against the petitioner for the offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 and police mechanically registering the FIR has resulted in abuse of process of law. Thus, the FIR needs to be quashed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3229 CRL.P No. 200997 of 2025 8. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma versus The State of Uttarakhand & Another in SLP (Criminal) No.3585/2020. He specifically drew the attention of this Court to paragraph Nos.12, 13 and 16, which read as under: “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 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3229 CRL.P No. 200997 of 2025 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 No.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 No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste. 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 No.2 herself. Due to dispute, appellant and others were not permitting respondent No.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, intimated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.” 9. Per Contra, Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin, learned High Court Government Pleader contended that the complaint is lodged though belatedly would make out a case for registration of the FIR and police are bound to - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3229 CRL.P No. 200997 of 2025 register the FIR as per the provisions of the BNSS, 2023 if there is a cognizable offence made out in the complaint. 10. He also contends that mere registration of the FIR cannot be called in question, especially when the investigation is under process. 11. He would further contend that the petitioner can always challenge the chargesheet, if filed, and this Court cannot hold a mini trial to find out the veracity of the averments made in the complaint. 12. It is the further contention of Sri Jamadar Shahabuddin that complaint is not an encyclopedia to contain all necessary details and even the question of delay needs to be investigated by the investigation agency and thereafter file appropriate report as is contemplated under Section 173 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the very prayer of the petitioner is too premature and sought for dismissal of petition. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3229 CRL.P No. 200997 of 2025 13. This Court in the light of the arguments of both sides, perused the records. On such perusal, prima facie materials are found in the complaint which would be sufficient enough to invoke the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, inasmuch in the complaint, very words with which the petitioner allegedly have used to abuse the complainant is found. 14. From the complaint itself it is found that the incident has occurred on the public road i.e., in front of the house of the petitioner. 15. No doubt, complaint does not contain who else was present other than Gudusab at the time of incident. These are all the matters which requires to be investigated by the investigation agency thoroughly after recording the statements of the witnesses and conducting necessary spot mahazar etc. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:3229 CRL.P No. 200997 of 2025 16. Though there cannot be any dispute as per the principles of law enunciated in Hitesh Verma’s case referred to supra, the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, especially when the material available before the Court is only the FIR, this Court is of the considered opinion that those principles are not applicable to the case on hand to allow the prayer of the petitioner by admitting petition for further consideration. 17. Accordingly, following: ORDER (a) The petition is dismissed. (b) However, dismissal of petition shall not come in the way of the petitioner from challenging the final report, if any, which is prejudicial to the interest of the petitioner. In view of disposal of main petition, pending application, if any, does not survive for consideration. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE RSP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 42/CT:PK