- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11797 CRL.P No. 8837 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8837 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. RAJANNA H S/O HANUMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS 2. SHIVALINGA @ RAGHU H R S/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS 3. SHANTHKUMAR H R S/O RAJANNA AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT HULLENAHALLI VILLAGE, T KODIHALLI, ARASIKERE HASSAN-573103 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. DINESH C R., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11797 CRL.P No. 8837 of 2024 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER ARASIKERE RURAL POLICE STATION ARASIKERE SUB DIVISION HASSAN REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING COMPLEX BENGALURU-560001 2. SAVITHRI W/O MOHANAKUMARA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS R/AT NAGENAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, ARASIKERE TALUK HASSAN-573103 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B.N. JAGADEESHA, ADDL. SPP FOR R1; SRI. MANJEGOWDA K.G., ADV. FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS) PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.325/2024 (ARISING FROM CR.NO.71/2024) OF ARASIKERE RURAL POLICE STATION FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 R/W 34 OFIPC AND SEC. 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF HONBLE ADDL. DIST. AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT HASSAN. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11797 CRL.P No. 8837 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioners - accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in Spl.C.No.325/2024 registered for offences punishable under Section 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s), (3)(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.C.R.Dinesh, appearing for the petitioners, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel Sri.Manjegowda K.G., appearing for respondent No.2. 3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows: The petitioners and CW.6 - One Chandrappa have an impending dispute with regard to the boundary of the property. It transpires that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 institute a suit in - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11797 CRL.P No. 8837 of 2024 O.S.No.376 of 2024, in which the concerned Court grants an injunction against Chandrappa - CW.6 restraining him from interfering with the possession of the petitioners. On 03.05.2024, the employees of Chandrappa - the complainant registers a complaint alleging that the complainant has been assaulted and also hurled abuses, which would become an offence under the Atrocities Act. This becomes a crime in Crime No.71 of 2024 for the afore-quoted offences. It transpires that the police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the petitioners to this Court, in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the complainant is setup by CW.6 - Chandrappa, who has an axe to grind against the petitioners since the civil dispute between the two regarding the boundary is pending consideration before the concerned Civil Court. He would submit that none of the incidents that have happened on the said date have occurred, it is only an imaginary allegation that is made by the complainant against the petitioners. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11797 CRL.P No. 8837 of 2024 5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent - complainant would refute the submission in contending that the complainant was gravely assaulted and hurled abuses taking the name of the caste of the complainant and the police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. It is a matter of trial for the petitioners to come out clean. Therefore, would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri.B.N.Jagadeesh, taking this Court through the wound certificate and the evidence of eyewitnesses would seek to demonstrate that in fact abuses have been hurled and the injury is caused to the complainant and would seek dismissal of the petition contending that it is a matter of trial. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:11797 CRL.P No. 8837 of 2024 8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue is the dispute between one Chandrappa - CW6 and the petitioners. The petitioners approached the Civil Court in O.S.No.376 of 2024, in which they are granted an order of injunction. After which comes the impugned complaint on 03.05.2024. The complainant is the employee of CW.6. Since the entire issue is triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the gist of the complaint as found in column No.10 of the FIR, which reads as follows: "£ÁAPÀ: 03/05/2024 ರಂದು ಾ 10-30 ಗಂೆಯ ಈ ೇನ ಾ oÁuÉUÉ ಾಜಾ ೕದ ದೂ ನ !ಾಾಂಶªÉãÉAzÀgÉ ಾ ತನ$ ಸ&ಂತ ಊರು (ಾ)ೇನಹ+ )ಾ ಮ-ಾದು. ಇವರು ಅ2ೇ ಊ ನ ಕುರುಬ ಜ(ಾಂಗೆ5 !ೇ ದ 6ೕಹ7 ಕು8ಾ9 .ಎ7 ಎಂಬುವವರನ$ ೕ ಈ)ೆ; 8 ವಷಗಳ >ಂ2ೆ ಮದು-ೆ 8ಾೊಂದು. ಮದು-ೆ ಆದ ನಂದ ಾ)ೆ ತನ$ ಗಂಡನ ಕAೆಯವರು ಆ¢ ಕ(ಾಟಕ ಜ(ಾಂಗ !ೇ ದವೆಂದು CೕDಾ ಾಣ2ೆ ಚ(ಾ (ೋೊಳGH IರುJಾIೆ. ಾಯ ಗಂಡನ ಅಕ5 ಮಮತರವರನು$ ºÀįÉèãÀºÀ½î )ಾ ಮೆ5 ೊಟುK ಮದು-ೆ 8ಾೊLKದು. ಾಯವರು ಅ)ೆ ೋ ಬರು ರುJಾIೆ ಅಯು ಸಹ ಾಯವರು ಆ ಕ(ಾಟಕ ಜ(ಾಂಗ-ೆಂದ ಸಹ +ದು. ಅವರ ಗಂಡ PÀAlæPÀÖgï ೆಲಸ 8ಾಡು ದು. ಅ2ೇ ೕ ಹುNೇನಹ+H )ಾ ಮದ ಚಂದ ಪPರವರ ಮ(ೆಯ ಕಂಾ ಕK9 ಅನು 8ಾೊಂಡು ಆ ಮ(ೆ ೆಲಸ 8ಾಡಲು ಾಯವರು ಮತುI ಅವರ ಗಂಡ 6ೕಹನಕು8ಾರ .ಎ7, Qೖಧುನ ರTಕು8ಾರ .ಎಂ, ಹಬUನಘಟKದ ಲWಣ ಎNಾರು ಚಂದ ಪPರವರ ಮ(ೆ ೆಲಸೆ5 (ಾಂಕ: 03/05/2024 ರಂದು Xೆಳ)ೆ; 9-00 ಗಂೆಯ ಸಮಯೆ5 ೋ ಚಂದ ಪPರವರು Jೋ ದಂJೆ ಹುNೇನಹ+H )ಾ ಮದ ಅವರ ಮ(ೆ ºÀwÛgÀ ೆಲಸ 8ಾ )ೋAೆ ಕಟುK I2ಾ.ಗ ಈ ನ ಸಂYೆ 4-30 ಗಂೆ ಸಮಯದ C°èUÉ ಬಂದ ಪ ಕರಣದ ಆೋತಾದ ಹುNೆನಹ+H )ಾ ಮದ ಾಜಣZ, [7 ಹನುQೕ)ೌಡ, ]ವಂಗ @ ರಘ^ [7 ಾಜಣZ. _ಾಂತಕು8ಾರ [7 ಾಜಣZ ರವರುಗಳG ಏಾಏC ಸ8ಾನ ಉ2ೆ.ೕಶಂದ Xೋ+ ಮಕ5ಳ, ಸೂDೆ ಮಕ5ಳ, ಾರ ಅಪPನದು Yಾಗ ಎಂದು ೇ+ ಮ(ೆ ಕಟುK I.ೕಾ ಎಂದು Xಾb)ೆ ಬಂದಂJೆ ಅ-ಾಚc ಶಬ.ಗ+ಂದ Xೈಯು ಜಗಳೆ5 ಬಂ2ಾಗ ಾಯವರ ಗಂಡ ಆೋತ )ೆ ಾಕಪP ನನ)ೆ Xೈಯು Iೕ (ಾವd - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:11797 CRL.P No. 8837 of 2024 ಏನು ತಪdP 8ಾ.ೕT ಎಂದು ೇ+2ಾಗ ಆೋತ gÁdtÚ ಏಾಏC ಅNೇ [.ದ. ಒಂದು 2ೊfೆZಯನ$ Jೆ)ೆದುೊಂಡು ರು 8ಾತ(ಾಡು Iೕಾ ಸೂDೆ ಮಗ(ೇ ಎಂದು ಾಯ ಗಂಡನ ಎಡ ಭುಜೆ5 ೊAೆದು )ಾಯ8ಾ ]ವಂಗ @ ರಘ^ ಎಂಬುವವರು ಅNೇ [.ದ. ಇLK)ೆಯನು$ Jೆ)ೆದುೊಂಡು ಾಯ ಗಂಡನ Xೆ$ನ hಾಗೆ5 ೊAೆದು ಮJೊIಬU ಆೋ _ಾಂತಕು8ಾರನು ೈbಂದ ಾಯ ಗಂಡ)ೆ Qೖೈ)ೆ ೊAೆ2ಾಗ ಾಯವರು ಆೋತ )ೆ (ಾವd ಕೂ 8ಾಡಲು ಬಂ2ೆ.ೕ-ೆ ನನ$ ಗಂಡ)ೆ ಏೆ Xೈಯು ೊAೆಯು I.ೕ ಎಂದು ೇಳಲು ೋ2ಾಗ ಆೋತ ]ವಂಗ @ ರಘ^ರವರು ಾಯವ )ೆ ೕನು 8ಾಗ Yಾ ಯವಳG ನಮ)ೆ ಬು. ೇಳಲು ಬರು Iೕಾ Nೋಪ9 ಮುಂAೆ ೕನು ಇ)ೆ ಬಂದ. ಂದ ನಮi Yಾಗ ೊಲಸು ಆ2ೆ ಎಂದು Yಾ ಂದ(ೆ 8ಾ ೈbಂದ Qೖೈ)ೆ ೊAೆದು ಈ Yಾಗವನು$ [ಟುK Jೊಲ)ೆ ಮುಂAೆ ಎಂದು ಾಂದ ಒದು. ಾಯವರು ಾCದ. ಬೆKಯನು$ >ದು ಎDೆ2ಾ ಹ ದು ಾC gÁdtÚ ಎಂಬುವವರು ಸಹ ಅ2ೇ ೕ ಇವಳG ೊಲಸು ಮುಂAೆ Yಾ ಯವರು (ಾವd ಉತIಮ Yಾ ಯವ )ೆ ಬಂದು ನಮ)ೆ ಬು. ೇಳಲು ಬರು I2ಾ.Dೆ ಎಂದು ಾಯವರ ತNೆಯ ಜುಟKನು$ >ದು ಎDೆ2ಾ ೈbಂದ Qೖೈ)ೆ ೊAೆದು ಾಂದ ಾಯ ಾ)ೆ ಒದು. ಜಗಳ 8ಾ2ಾ C¯Éèà ೆಲಸ 8ಾಡು Iದ. ರTಕು8ಾರ, ಲWjk, ಮತುI ಮ(ೆಯ 8ಾೕಕಾದ ಚಂದ ಪPನ ೆಂಡ ಚಂದ ಮi ರವರು ಜಗಳ [ಸಲು ಬಂ2ಾಗ 3 ಜನ ಆೋತರು ರTಕು8ಾರ ಮತುI ಚಂದ ಮi)ೆ Xಾb)ೆ ಬಂದಂJೆ Xೈಯು ೆಳೆ5 ಾC ತು+ದು ೈbಂದ Qೖೈ)ೆ ೊAೆದು ಗNಾೆ 8ಾದು. ಅಷKರ ಅNೇ ೆಲಸ 8ಾಡು Iದ. ಲWjಣ, ಚಂದ ಮiನ ಮಗಳG ೇlಾ, ಚಂದ ಪPನ Jಾb 8ಾಳಮi ಮತುI ಅNೇ ೋಗು Iದ. ]ವಜಲಂದ9 ಎNಾರು !ೇ ಜಗಳ [ ಸಮmಾನ 8ಾದರು ಆ 3 ಜನರು ಮ(ೆ ಕಟುKವ Tnಾರೆ5 ಬಂದೆ ಮiನ$ ೊNೆ 8ಾಡ2ೆ [ಡುವdಲ ಎಂದು ೊNೆ Xೆದ ೆ ಾCದರು ಆಗ (ಾವd ಾವd2ೋ ಒಂದು ಆೋದ ಾ ಾಗು 6ೕಹನ ಕು8ಾರ, ರTಕು8ಾರ, ಚಂದ ಮi ಎNಾರು ಅರೕೆೆ ಸಾ ಆಸPJೆ )ೆ ಬಂದು oCJೆp)ೆ !ೇ oCJೆp ಪAೆದುೊಂAೆವd ಇವರು ಚಂದ ಪPನ Tnಾರದ, 2ೆ&ೕಷ ಇಟುKೊಂಡು (ಾವd ಅವರ ಮ(ೆ ೆಲಸೆ5 ೋ2ೆ.ವd ಎಂದು ನಮi QೕNೆ 2ೆ&ೕಷ ಇಟುKೊಂಡು (ಾವd ಕೂೆಲಸೆ5 ೋ2ಾ.ಗ ನಮi QೕNೆ ಜಗಳ 8ಾ 8ಾಗ Yಾ )ೆ !ೇ ದವDೆಂದು Yಾ ಂದ(ೆ 8ಾ ಅವ8ಾನ)ೊ+ ನಮ)ೆ ಹNೆ 8ಾ ೊNೆ Xೆದ ೆ ಾCರುವ Qೕಲ5ಂಡವರುಗಳ QೕNೆ ಾನೂನು ಕ ಮ ೈ)ೊಳHXೇೆಂದು ಇJಾcಾ ೊಟK ದೂ ನ Qೕೆ)ೆ ಪ .ವ.ವರ" - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:11797 CRL.P No. 8837 of 2024 The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17, reads as follows: "17. PÉù£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ ¸ÁgÁA±À CgÀ¹ÃPÉgÉ UÁæªÀiÁAvÀgÀ ¥Éưøï oÁuÁ ªÁå¦ÛUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ ºÀįÉèãÀºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÁQë 06 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:03/05/2024 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ 9-00 UÀAmɬÄAzÀ ¸ÁQë 01,02,03 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 05, gÀªÀgÀÄ ºÀ¼Éà ªÀÄ£É PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ UÉÆÃqÉ PÀlÄÖwÛzÁÝUÀ ¸ÀAeÉ 4-30 UÀAmÉ ¸ÀªÀÄAiÀÄzÀ°è C°èUÉ §AzÀ F zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ PÁ®A £ÀA§gï 12gÀ°è PÀAqÀ DgÉÆævÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë 02 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë 06 gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ UÉÆÃqÉ PÀlÄÖwÛzÁÝgÉ JA§ GzÉÝñÀ¢AzÀ ªÀÄ£É ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÀÄ KPÁKQ ¨ÉÆý ªÀÄPÀ̼À, ¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄPÀ̼À, AiÀiÁgÀ C¥Àà£ÀzÀÄ eÁUÀ JAzÀÄ ºÉý E°è ªÀÄ£É PÀlÄÖwÛ¢ÝÃgÁ JAzÀÄ ¨Á¬ÄUÉ §AzÀAvÉ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄÝ dUÀ¼ÀPÉÌ §AzÁUÀ ¸ÁQë 02 gÀªÀgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ KPÉ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄåwÛÃj £ÁªÀÅ K£ÀÄ vÀ¥ÀÄà ªÀiÁr¢Ýë £ÁªÀÅ PÀÆ° ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä §A¢zÉÝÃªÉ £ÀªÀÄä ªÉÄÃ¯É KPÉ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛÃj JAzÀÄ PÉýzÁUÀ DgÉÆæ 01 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë 2 gÀªÀjUÉ KPÁKQ C¯Éèà ©¢ÝzÀÝ MAzÀÄ zÉÆuÉÚAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ wgÀÄV ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀÄwÛÃAiÀiÁ ¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄUÀ£Éà JAzÀÄ JqÀ ¨sÀÄdPÉÌ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ UÁAiÀĪÀiÁr DgÉÆæ 02 gÀªÀgÀÄ C¯Éèà ©¢ÝzÀÝ EnÖUÉ ZÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ ¸ÁQë 2 gÀªÀgÀ ¨É¤ß£À ¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ ªÀÄvÉÆÛ§â DgÉÆæ 03 gÀªÀgÀÄ PÉʬÄAzÀ ¸ÁQë 02 gÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÊPÉÊUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÁUÀ ¸ÁQë 01gÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ£À£ÀÄß KPÉ ºÉÆqÀÄwÛÃj JAzÀÄ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ©r¸À®Ä §AzÁUÀ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀgÉAzÀÄ UÉÆwÛzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ ¸ÀªÀtÂÃðAiÀÄ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ DgÉÆæ 1,2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀjUÉ DgÉÆæ 02 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀªÁV ¤Ã£ÀÄ ªÀiÁ¢UÀ eÁwAiÀĪÀ¼ÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ §Ä¢Ý ºÉüÀ®Ä §gÀÄwÛÃAiÀiÁ ¯ÉÆÃ¥Àgï ªÀÄÄAqÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ E°èUÉ §A¢zÀÝjAzÀ £ÀªÀÄä eÁUÀ ºÉÆ®¸ÀÄ DVzÉ JAzÀÄ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀªÁV eÁw ¤AzÀ£É ªÀiÁr CªÁåZÀåªÁV ¨ÉÊzÀÄ PÉʬÄAzÀ ªÉÄÊPÉÊUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ DgÉÆæ 03 gÀªÀgÀÄ F eÁUÀªÀ£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ vÉÆ®UÉ ªÀÄÄAqÉ JAzÀÄ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ PÁ°¤AzÀ MzÀÄÝ £ÀAvÀgÀ DgÉÆæ 01 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀgÀ §mÉÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »rzÀÄ J¼ÉzÁr EªÀ¼ÀÄ ºÉÆ®¸ÀÄ ªÀÄÄAqÉ eÁwAiÀĪÀgÀÄ £ÁªÀÅ GvÀÛªÀÄ eÁwAiÀĪÀjUÉ §AzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ §Ä¢Ý ºÉüÀ®Ä §gÀÄwÛzÁÝ¼É JAzÀÄ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀgÀ vÀ¯ÉAiÀÄ dÄlÖ£ÀÄß »rzÀÄ J¼ÉzÁr PÉʬÄAzÀ ªÉÄÊPÉÊUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ PÁ°UÉ MzÀÄÝ dUÀ¼À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀĪÁUÀ C¯Éèà EzÀÝ ¸ÁQë 03,04, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 05 gÀªÀgÀÄUÀ¼ÀÄ dUÀ¼À ©r¸À®Ä ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ DgÉÆæ 01,02,ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 03 gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁQë 03 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë 04 gÀªÀgÉUÉ ¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄPÀ̼À, ¸ÀÆ¼É ªÀÄÄAqÉ CAvÁ ¨Á¬ÄUÉ §AzÀAvÉ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄÝ PɼÀPÉÌ ºÁQ PÁ°AzÀ vÀĽzÀÄ PÉʬÄAzÀ ªÉÄÊPÉÊUÉ ºÉÆqÉzÀÄ UÀ¯ÁmÉ ªÀiÁr ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁr DgÉÆæ 3 d£ÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃj PÉÆ¯É ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë 01 gÀªÀjUÉ CªÁåZÀåªÁV ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁr eÁw ¤AzÀ£É ªÀiÁr ¹ÃgÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »qÀÄzÀÄ J¼ÉzÁV PÉÆ¯É ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÀÄÝ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë 02,03 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 04 gÀªÀjUÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ CªÁåZÀåªÁV ¨ÉÊzÀÄ ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁr PÉÆ¯É ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ ¸ÁQë01,02,03, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë-04 gÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁ£Àå ¸ÀégÀÆ¥ÀzÀ gÀPÀÛUÁAiÀĪÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ,CAvÁ vÀ¤SɬÄAzÀ zÀÈqÀ¥ÀnÖgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:11797 CRL.P No. 8837 of 2024 DzÀÝjAzÀ ¸ÁQë-01 gÀªÀjUÉ PÀ®A 323,,504,506,354 L¦¹ gÉ/« 34 L¦¹ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ®A3(1)(Dgï)(J¸ï), 3(2)(«J) J¸ï.¹/J¸ï.n DPïmï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÁQë 02,03 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 04 gÀªÀjUÉ 323,324,504,506 gÉ/« 34 L¦¹ gÉ/« 34 L¦¹ jÃvÁå zÉÆõÁgÉÆÃ¥ÀuÁ ¥ÀnÖ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÀÛzÉ. " A perusal at the complaint and the charge sheet would unmistakably indicate that the offences under the Atrocities Act are not made out even to its remotest sense, as the dispute between Chandrappa and the petitioners have led an employee of Chandrappa to register a complaint against these petitioners. Hurling of abuses is vaguely quoted in the complaint and in the charge sheet. It is trite law that mere hurling of abuses would not amount to an offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Atrocities Act. There must be clear intention on the part of the accused to insult the complainant. The Apex Court in the case of HITESH VERMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND1 has held as follows: “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 1 (2020) 10 SCC 710 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:11797 CRL.P No. 8837 of 2024 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 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 - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:11797 CRL.P No. 8837 of 2024 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 case [Union of India v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 4 SCC 761 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 686] , SCC p. 797, para 52) - 12 - NC: 2025:KHC:11797 CRL.P No. 8837 of 2024 “52. There is no presumption that the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes may misuse the provisions of law as a class and it is not resorted to by the members of the upper castes or the members of the elite class. For lodging a false report, it cannot be said that the caste of a person is the cause. It is due to the human failing and not due to the caste factor. Caste is not attributable to such an act. On the other hand, members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes due to backwardness hardly muster the courage to lodge even a first information report, much less, a false one. In case it is found to be false/unsubstantiated, it may be due to the faulty investigation or for other various reasons including human failings irrespective of caste factor. There may be certain cases which may be false that can be a ground for interference by the Court, but the law cannot be changed due to such misuse. In such a situation, it can be taken care of in proceeding under Section 482 CrPC.” … … …. … 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 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 - 13 - NC: 2025:KHC:11797 CRL.P No. 8837 of 2024 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 - 14 - NC: 2025:KHC:11797 CRL.P No. 8837 of 2024 investigation and the specific facts of this case, we are of the view that the High Court 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.” (Emphasis supplied) Therefore, the offence under the Atrocities Act cannot be permitted to be continued. They are to be obliterated. 9. The other offences are under the IPC. They are, Sections 324, 504, 506 and 323 of the IPC. Those offences will - 15 - NC: 2025:KHC:11797 CRL.P No. 8837 of 2024 have to be tried for the reason that the wound certificates are appended to the charge sheet. The three wound certificates would clearly indicate several injuries all over the body of the complainant and others. Though they are not grievous in nature, nonetheless they are injuries. Pendency of a civil suit between the two is no licence to injure any person. Therefore, the offences under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 of the IPC shall continue. 10. The reminder of the offence is Section 354 of the IPC. To allege Section 354 of the IPC, the last five lines of column No.17 of the charge sheet is a vivid narration of what has happened on the said date. Therefore, the offence under Section 354 of the IPC also will have to be tried, not against accused No.3 but against accused Nos.1 and 2. Accused No.3 is said to be a student, who is now aspiring a civil services in the State, even otherwise, except in the statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. The complaint does not narrate any overt act upon accused No.3 for the trial to be permitted to be continued against him. - 16 - NC: 2025:KHC:11797 CRL.P No. 8837 of 2024 11. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i) The petition is allowed in part; ii) The offences under Sections 3(1)(r)(s), (3)(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 are obliterated in its entirety against all the accused; iii) The offences under Sections 323, 324, 354, 504 and 506 of the IPC are sustained against accused Nos.1 and 2; and iv) All proceedings in Special Case No.325/2024 stands obliterated qua accused No.3. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 69