- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48850 CRL.P No. 1760 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1760 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. RANI MANORAMA B S D/O LATE B K SRINIVASA MURTHY AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, R/AT NO.523, 3RD MAIN ROAD, BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE, 1ST BLOCK, SRINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 050. 2. SRI. MUNINARAYANAPPA M S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, R/AT NO.10, 1ST CROSS, SOMESHWARANAGAR JAYANAGAR 1ST BLOCK BENGALURU – 560 011. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA R, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M S DEVARAJU, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY BASAVESHWARANAGAR POLICE STATION, BENGALURU REPRESENTED BY Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48850 CRL.P No. 1760 of 2024 STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. SMT. DAKSHAYINI K W/O GOPALA KRISHNA K AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS R/AT NO.442, 6TH PHASE, 1ST STAGE MAHAGANAPATHINAGARA INDUSTRIAL TOWN BENGALURU – 560 010. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. RAJASHEKARA SEERI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN SPL.C.NO.89/2024 (IN CR.NO.453/2023 OF BASAVESHWARA NAGAR POLICE STATION) FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 504 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(r)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT NOW WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-71). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48850 CRL.P No. 1760 of 2024 ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner No.1 is said to be belonging to the Brahmin community. Petitioner No.2 is said to be belonging to the Golla community. Respondent No.2 is the complainant. 2. The case of the complainant is that she belongs to a Schedule Caste by birth. However, on 28.01.2000 itself, petitioner No.1 adopted her and she has grown up as a Brahmin. It is further submitted that petitioner No.1 was taken care of by the complainant and hence, petitioner No. 1 executed a Will in favour of the complainant in respect of certain immovable properties. However, thereafter, petitioner No.1 came under the influence of petitioner No.2 and has cancelled the Will and has executed a sale deed in respect of one of the immovable properties, which was the subject matter of the Will, in favour of petitioner No.2. When the complainant questioned the same, both the petitioners insulted her by taking - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48850 CRL.P No. 1760 of 2024 her caste name in full public view and also threatened her with dire consequences. 3. Based on the aforementioned complaint, a police report has been filed against the petitioners for the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes, (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance 2014 and also under Sections 34 and 504 of Indian Penal Code. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have presented this criminal petition. 4. The case of the petitioners is that the complaint has been filed with an ulterior motive. It is denied that petitioner No.1 has adopted respondent No.2. It is further submitted that respondent No.2 is not related to petitioner No.1. It is further submitted that though a Will as alleged was executed in favour of respondent No.2, subsequently, due to the conduct of respondent No.2, petitioner No.1 has cancelled the same, and the same is done in accordance with law. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48850 CRL.P No. 1760 of 2024 Thereafter, one of the properties has been sold in favour of petitioner No. 2. Angered by it, it is submitted that respondent No.2 has filed the original suit for partition, which is pending. Further, she has filed the present complaint only to coerce the petitioners to arrive at a compromise with her. It is further submitted that even if the complaint and the police report are read as a whole, they do not constitute the offences as alleged. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 justify the action initiated against the petitioners herein and pray for dismissal of the criminal petition. 6. The case of respondent No.2 is that, though she was born in a Schedule Caste family, she was officially adopted by petitioner No.1, who is a Brahmin, and that she was raised as a Brahmin. Once such a submission is made by respondent No.2- - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48850 CRL.P No. 1760 of 2024 complainant, she will not remain as a member of the Schedule Caste, and she cannot make an allegation that she has been insulted by taking her caste name. 7. Perusal of the complaint and the contents of the police report reveals that petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2 were very close to each other, resulting in petitioner No.1 executing a Will in favour of respondent No.2. However, they have fallen apart subsequently, resulting in petitioner No.1 canceling her Will and selling one of the properties in favour of petitioner No.2. Because of which respondent No.2 has preferred an original suit, which is still pending. 8. Under the circumstances, it is obvious that the complaint has been filed to give a criminal colour to a civil transaction between petitioner No.1 and respondent No.2. Therefore, in my opinion, the petition requires to be allowed. Hence, the following: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48850 CRL.P No. 1760 of 2024 ORDER i) The Criminal Petition is allowed. ii) The proceedings in Spl.Case No.89/2024 (in Crime No.453/2023 of Basaveshwara Nagar Police Station) pending on the file of LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-71), so far as it relates to the petitioners herein are concerned, stands quashed. SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE UN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8