- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1369 CRL.P No. 201755 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201755 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. ABHISHEK S/O SHIVALINGAPPA PATTAN, AGE:19 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O. MEERA BLOCK, POLICE QUARTERS, OPP. O/O POLICE COMMISSIONER, KALABURAGI-585102. 2. SMT. PRIYADARSHINI W/O SHIVALINGAPPA PATTAN, AGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O.MEERA BLOCK, POLICE QUARTERS, OPP. O/O POLICE COMMISSIONER, KALABURAGI-585102. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI SANJAY A. PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BRAHMPUR PS, KALABURAGI, ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH-585103. 2. SMT. SUNITA W/O CHANDRASHEKHAR, AGE:32 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O. H.NO. 2, MEERA BLOCK, POLICE QUARTERS, Digitally signed by SHIVAKUMAR HIREMATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1369 CRL.P No. 201755 of 2023 OPP. O/O POLICE COMMISSIONER, KALABURAGI-585102. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VEERANAGOUDA MALIPATIL, HCGP FOR R1 R2 SERVED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO. 144/2023 BRAHMPUR POLICE STATION DIST. KALABURAGI AND SPL. CASE SC/ST NO. 49/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 323, 354, 504, 506, IPC R/W 34 IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST ACT-1989 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KALABURAGI, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) Petitioners are before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Special Case (SC/ST) No.49/2023 pending before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, arising out of Crime No.144/2023, registered by Brahmapur Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r) & (S) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1369 CRL.P No. 201755 of 2023 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1. Respondent No.2 who is served in the matter has remained un-represented before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that, the allegations found in the first information dated 09.06.2023 prima-facie do not make out a case against the petitioners for the offences punishable under the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Further statement of the first informant and the alleged eyewitnesses i.e. C.W.5 to C.S.7 has been recorded belatedly and only based on the said statement, charge-sheet is now filed against the petitioners for the alleged offences. The petitioners who are the wife and son of a serving Police Officer are put to serious embarrassment because of the impugned criminal proceedings. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP has opposed the petition. He submits that, the incident in question is recorded in CCTV footage and the same is part of the charge-sheet. C.W.5 to C.W.7 have stated that, they have seen the alleged incident. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1369 CRL.P No. 201755 of 2023 Therefore, there is a prima-facie case as against the petitioners for the alleged offences. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the petition. 5. Perusal of the material on record would go to show that, the petitioners herein are the wife and son of a Deputy Superintendent of Police who is in service and the respondent No.2 is also the wife of Deputy Superintendent of Police, who is in service. The incident in question allegedly had taken place on 19.06.2023, when the petitioners herein had taken their dog to attend nature call. The allegation in the first information is that, the first informant had objected the petitioners for taking their dog to attend nature call within the premises of police quarters and therefore, the petitioners allegedly had abused the first informant referring to her caste and also criminally intimidated her. Perusal of the averments made in the first information would go to show that, the first informant has not spoken about the presence of any other persons at the place of the incident, when the petitioners allegedly had abused her referring to her caste. For the purpose of attracting the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r) & (s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, the alleged act should have been committed by the accused in - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1369 CRL.P No. 201755 of 2023 any place within the public view. In the case on hand, the incident had taken place near the staff quarters of the police department and in the first information, the presence of any others in the place where the incident in question had taken place has not been stated. Though the incident had taken place on 19.06.2023 at about 18.30 hours, the first information was submitted on 20.06.2023 at about 13.45 hours. In the further statement of the first informant that was recorded belatedly on 01.07.2023, for the first time she has made an allegation that the petitioners had abused her referring to her caste in the presence of C.W.5-Smt. Aishwarya, C.W.6-Smt. Renuka and C.W.7-Smt. Poonam. The statement of the aforesaid eyewitnesses was recorded subsequent to the further statement of the first informant. Perusal of the statement of C.W.5 to C.W.7 would go to show that, they were not present at the place of incident and on the other hand, they had witnessed the said incident from the second floor of the building in which they were residing. Therefore, even if the incident in question is captured in the CCTV camera, the presence of the aforesaid eyewitnesses at the spot cannot be established from the same. It is only based on the belated - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1369 CRL.P No. 201755 of 2023 subsequent statement of the first informant and the statement of the alleged eyewitnesses, the petitioners are now charge- sheeted for the alleged offences, though the averments made in the first informant against the petitioner do not contain sufficient ingredients to invoke the offence punishable under the provisions of ST/ST (POA) Act, against the petitioners. The respondent No.2 who is served in the matter has remained un- represented before this Court. The dispute is between the family members of two serving Police Officers and considering the nature of allegations found against the petitioners, I am of the opinion that, it is a fit case wherein, this Court is required to exercise its inherent jurisdiction in order to meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the following order: ORDER (i) Criminal Petition is allowed; (ii) The entire proceedings in Special Case (SC/ST) No.49/2023 pending before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, arising out of Crime No.144/2023, registered by Brahmpur Police Station, Kalaburagi, for the offences - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:1369 CRL.P No. 201755 of 2023 punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r) & (S) of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989 is quashed as against the petitioners herein. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE SVH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 CT:PK