- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11415 CRL.P No. 7609 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7609 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. KIRAN KUMAR @ KIRANAKUMAR K, S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS R/AT NO.46/2, 2ND MAIN, 3RD CROSS, VITTALA NAGAR CHAMARAJAPETE BENGALURU-560 018. 2. SRI ANAND J @ ANAND J S/O JAI KUMAR AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/AT NO.130, 6TH CROSS, AZAD NAGAR, CHAMARAJAPETE BENGALURU-560 018. 3. SRI VINAY KUMAR @ VINAYKUMAR N S/O NAGARAJ B C AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.50, 4TH MAIN, AZAD NAGAR, CHAMARAJAPETE BENGALURU-560 018. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. TEJAS N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR POLICE STATION BANGALORE-560 019. (REPRESENTED BY THE LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HCK, BANGALORE-01). 2. SRI VENKATESH M S/O MANI Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11415 CRL.P No. 7609 of 2024 AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.57, 3RD MAIN, KASTURABA NAGAR CHAMARAJAPETE BENGALURU-560 018. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. LAKSHMAN B., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI. MALLAN GOUD H., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN SPL.CASE.NO.237/2024 ON THE FILE OF HON'BLE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU, FOR THE OFFENCES U/S 3(1)(r)(s) AND 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, U/S 341, 506 READ WITH 34 OF IPC, U/S 78 OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2008 WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.219/2023 OF KEMPEGOWDA NAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioners—accused Nos. 1 to 3, who have been charge-sheeted for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, under Sections 341 and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and under Section 78 of the Information Technology Act, 2008, are before this Court seeking relief. 2. The prosecution alleges that accused No. 1 was previously working as a digger in a graveyard and was subsequently removed from his position. The complainant had filed a suit in O.S. No. 6081/2023 for a permanent injunction against accused No. 1. While the said suit was pending, on - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11415 CRL.P No. 7609 of 2024 5.8.2023, when the complainant was proceeding towards Chamarajapet along with one Mohan near 5th Main, T.R. Mill, accused Nos. 1 and 2 allegedly forcibly waylaid the complainant, abused him with reference to his caste, and threatened him with dire consequences. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the alleged incident took place on 5.8.2023, while the private complaint was filed only on 10.11.2023. He further submitted that, aside from general and omnibus allegations, there are no specific overt acts attributed to each of the accused, detailing how and in what manner they threatened and abused the complainant with reference to his caste. He also argued that the allegations made in the FIR stem from an employment-related dispute concerning the role of a digger in the graveyard, which has been given a criminal facade. 4. In response, the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 submitted that the allegations made in the complaint, coupled with the statements of the complainant and Mohan—who was present at the time of the incident—clearly establish that petitioner-accused No. 1 abused the complainant with reference to his caste under the provisions of Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The veracity of the allegations, he argued, should be considered at the time of trial and not at this stage. Therefore, he sought dismissal of the petition. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11415 CRL.P No. 7609 of 2024 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader reiterated the submissions made by the learned counsel for respondent No. 2. 6. The arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent-State, and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2 have duly considered the same. 7. A perusal of the private complaint indicates that the dispute between accused No. 1 and respondent No. 2 is related to the employment as a digger in the graveyard, and a suit has been filed against accused No. 1 for a permanent injunction. The complainant, in his further statement, reiterated the allegations made in the complaint. The statement of Mohan, who was present at the time of the incident, was recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. 8. An examination of the statements of the complainant and the said witness indicates that, apart from general and omnibus allegations, there is no specific overt act detailing how and in what manner accused No. 1 abused the complainant with reference to his caste. The allegations merely state that the accused came to the place of the incident and abused the complainant with reference to his caste. 9. Additionally, the petitioners did not use criminal force or assault against the complainant in a manner that would restrain him from proceeding further, thereby failing to establish an offence under Section 341 of the IPC. Moreover, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11415 CRL.P No. 7609 of 2024 there is no material evidence to substantiate that petitioner- accused No. 1 committed an offence under Section 78 of the Information Technology Act. 10. In view of the foregoing discussion, I am of the considered view that the complainant, as an afterthought and with the intention of preventing petitioner-accused No. 1 from interfering with his employment as a digger in the graveyard, has filed this complaint. Under such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law. 11. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. 12. The impugned proceedings in Spl.C.No.237/2024 pending on the file of LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru (CCH-17), insofar it relates to the petitioners-accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 is hereby quashed. 13. Pending I.A.No.1/2025 does not survive consideration and stands disposed of. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE HR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 103