- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42816 CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1886 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. SRI RAHUL M S/O MANJUNATH.R, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, NO.9, SRI SAI SAMRUDHI APARTMENT, SRINIVASAPURA, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064 AADHAR NO.2175 0063 8930 2. SRI RAKESH M S/O MANJUNATH.R, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, NO.9, SRI SAI SAMRUDHI APARTMENT, SRINIVASAPURA, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064 AADHAR NO. 2591 6701 0215 3. SRI MANJUNATH R S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, NO.9, SRI SAI SAMRUDHI APARTMENT, SRINIVASAPURA, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064 AADHAR NO. 8850 1242 3473 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VENKATESHA T S, ADVOCATE (P/H)) Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42816 CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, YELAHANKA SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE CITY-560064 REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001. 2. SRI PRAJWAL S/O PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, SJ LAYOUT, OPP HEMANNASWAMY TEMPLE, BALAJI LAYOUT, SRINIVASAPURA, YELAHANKA-560064 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.V.ANOOP KUMAR., HCGP FOR R1 (P/H) SRI. HARSHA M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. INDRA DHANUSH M.A., ADVOCATE FOR R2 (P/H)) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.6/2025 REGISTERED BY YELAHANKA P.S., BENGALURU CITY, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-71), BANGALORE, FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 115(2), 118(1), 352, 3(5) OF THE BNS, 2023, U/S 3(1)(r),3(1)(s),3(2)(5a) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42816 CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioners are seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.6/2025 registered at Yelahanka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a), of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014 and Sections 115(2), 118(1), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. 2. The complaint is lodged by the second respondent herein, victim in the case, wherein he has alleged that on 07.01.2025 at about 04.30 p.m., while he was returning to his house from work, he saw four boys sitting and consuming ganja and therefore, he reprimanded them. Thereafter, at about 06.58 p.m. his friend by name Rahul (accused No.1) called him and asked him to come near the Hollow block factory and when he went there along with his friends Kishore and Rehamath, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42816 CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025 all of a sudden the accused persons started assaulting him with a chopper on the head and with hands and abused him in filthy language, taking reference to his caste etc. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as per the complaint averments, the complainant was residing in the locality only for four months and therefore, the allegations that he knew the caste of the complainant is not correct. He further contended that there are omnibus allegations made that the complainant was abused with reference to his caste, but the incident has not taken place within the public view and therefore, the ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out. 4. The learned counsel has relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of his contentions: i. Daya Bhatnagar Vs. State, LAWS(DLH)-2004-1- 89; relevant para extracted as hereunder: - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42816 CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025 “(19.) The SC/ST Act was enacted with a laudable object to protect vulnerable section of the society. Sub- clauses (i) to (xv) of Section 3(1) of the Act enumerate various kinds of atrocities that might be perpetrated against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which constitute an offence. However, Sub-clause (x) is the only clause where even offending "utterances" have been made punishable. The Legislature required intention' as an essential ingredient for the offence of "insult", "intimidation' and "humiliation' of a member of the Scheduled Casts or Scheduled Tribe in any place within "public view'. Offences under the Act are quite grave and provide stringent punishments. Graver is the offence, stronger should be the proof. The interpretation which suppresses or evades the mischief and advances the object of the Act has to be adopted. Keeping this in view, looking to the aims and objects of the Act, the expression "public view" in Section 3(1)(x) of the Act has to be interpreted to mean that the public persons present, (howsoever small number it may be), should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties. In other words, persons having any kind of close relationship or association with the complainant, would necessarily get excluded. I am again in agreement with the interpretation put on the expression "public view" by learned brother Mr. Justice B. A. Khan. The relevant portion of his judgment reads as under: "I accordingly hold that expression within "public view' occurring in Section 3(1)(x) of the Act means within the view which includes hearing, knowledge or - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42816 CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025 accessibility also, of a group of people of the place/locality/village as distinct from few who are not private and are as good as strangers and not linked with the complainant through any close relationship or any business, commercial or any other vested interest and who are not participating members with him in any way.If such group of people comprises anyone of these, it would not satisfy the requirement of "public view' within the meaning of the expression used." (Emphasis supplied) (25.) To conclude, I am in complete agreement with the interpretation put by Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.A. Khan to the expression "public view" in Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. But, with great respect to the learned brother Justice Khan, I have not been able to persuade myself to agree to the conclusion reached by him on facts. "Public view" envisages that public persons present there should be independent, impartial and not having any commercial or business relationship, or other linkage with the complainant. It would also not include persons who have any previous enmity or motive to falsely implicate the accused persons.” ii. Karuppudayar Vs. State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi, Trichy & Ors, in SLP (Criminal) No.8778-8779/2024 reported in 2025 INC 132; relevant paras are extracted hereunder: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42816 CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025 “10. The term "any place within public view" initially came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Swaran Singh and others v. State through Standing Counsel and another reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435. This Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 referred to Swaran Singh (supra) and reiterated the legal position as under: "14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in "any place within public view". What is to be regarded as "place in public view" had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh v. State (Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435: (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527]. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression "public place" and "in any place within public view". It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view (sic) (Ed.: This sentence appears to be contrary to what is stated below in the extract from Swaran Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in the application of this principle in para 15, below:"Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42816 CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025 friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view."]. The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 443- 44, para 28) "28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a "chamar") when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression "place within public view" with the expression "public place". A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies." (emphasis in original) - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42816 CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025 11. It could thus be seen that, to be a place within public view', the place should be open where the members of the public can witness or hear the utterance made by the accused to the victim. If the alleged offence takes place within the four corners of the wall where members of the public are not present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place at a place within public view.” iii. Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, AIR 2020 SC 5584; relevant paras are extracted hereunder: “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 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, 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. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42816 CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025 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.” iv. Rithesh Pais Vs. State of Karnataka And Ors., MANU/KA/2638/2022 and v. Khuman Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2019 SC 4030. In the above two judgments relied, the view is reiterated. 5. The learned High Court Government Pleader and the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 on the other hand, contended that the complaint averments clearly disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners and the matter is still under investigation and therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed. Accordingly they have sought to dismiss the petition. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42816 CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025 6. It is not in dispute that the complainant was admitted as an in-patient in the hospital from where his statement was recorded by the police in the presence of the Doctor. In the complaint itself it is stated that he went to the spot along with his friends, which shows that even they were present at the spot. The incident has not taken place within four walls of a building. It is too premature to hold at this stage that the incident is not within public view or the ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out. Further, accused are alleged to have assaulted the victim with a chopper. The accused were therefore, armed with a dangerous weapon at the time of incident, which shows their intention. The investigation is in progress. Statements of the witnesses have to be recorded. 7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in D.Venkatasubramanian and Others Vs. M.K.Mohan Krishnamachari and another reported in (2009) 10 SCC 488 has held that the statutory obligation and duty of - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:42816 CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025 police to investigate into crime should not be normally interfered with. 8. Further it is well settled that this Court cannot conduct a mini trial while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court has a very limited jurisdiction and whether there are sufficient materials or not is a matter which is not to be decided at this stage. This Court is of the considered view that there is a prima facie case against the petitioners made out from the complaint averments. No grounds are made to quash the proceedings. 9. Criminal Petition is dismissed. 10. The observations made in the order are confined to the disposal of the petition. 11. I.A.No.2/2025 is disposed of. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE JT/- CT: JL