- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:8287 CRL.P No. 266 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 266 OF 2020 BETWEEN: 1. PRAKASH K.P. S/O K.M. POOVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, WORKING AS FDA 2. VINOD P.K S/O LATE P.D. KRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, WORKING AS SDA 3. ANITH T.L. W/O K.S. YADU KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. 4. DIKSHA, D/O P.S. CHANDRASHEKAR, AGED: 28 YEARS, WORKING AS COMPUTER OPERATOR. 5. RAMESH R.H., S/O HANAMANTHE GOWDA B, AGED: 58 YEARS, WORKING AS AUDIT OFFICER, ALL THE PETITIONERS ARE WORKING IN THE OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PWD DIVISION, MADIKERI - 571 201 KODAGU DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KARUMBAIAH T.A., ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:8287 CRL.P No. 266 of 2020 AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY MADIKERI TOWN POLICE, MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 201. 2. C.P. SIDDESHWARAN, S/O PAIPAIAH, CLASS III CONTRACTOR, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT BEHIND SUDARSHAN GUEST HOUSE, CHAIN GATE, MYSORE ROAD, MADIKERI - 571 201. KODAGU DISTRICT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VENKAT SATHYANARAYAN, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. CHANDRASHEKAR .N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. BHARGAV .G., ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR NO.91/2019 REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(VA)(VII) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT MADIKERI, KODAGU DISTRICT. THIS CRL.P, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER The petitioners being accused Nos. 1 to 5 in Crime No.91/2019 of Madikeri Town Police Station, pending on the file of the learned Additional District and Sessions Court, Madikeri, Kodagu District, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of Indian Penal Code (for - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:8287 CRL.P No. 266 of 2020 short 'the IPC') and Section 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)(vii) of SC/ST (POA) Act (for short 'SC & ST Act) are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 as informant filed the first information with Madikeri Town Police Station against accused Nos. 1 to 5 alleging commission of the offences as stated above. It is the contention of respondent No.2 that, he is a Civil Contractor working for PWD. He filed a tender and completed the work. He approached the accused on 30.11.2019 at 11.am in the office of Executive Engineer, PWD. When respondent No.2 asked for issuance of the cheque to clear his bill, accused Nos.1 and 2 have abused him in filthy language, by referring to his caste with an intention to defame him and criminally intimidated to send him to the jail. Accused No.1 caught hold of respondent No.2 and slapped him. On 23.12.2019, the accused have committed similar offence once again. Accused Nos. 3 and 4 being contract workers have supported accused Nos. 1 and 2. Therefore, he requested the police to register the case and to initiate legal action against all the accused. Accordingly, FIR in Crime No.91/2019 came to be filed for the above said offences. In the meantime, the - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:8287 CRL.P No. 266 of 2020 petitioners have approached this Court, seeking to quash the criminal proceedings. Since interim order of stay was granted, further investigation was not undertaken. 3. Heard Sri. Karumbaiah T.A, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri. Venkat Sathyanarayan, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. Chandrashekar N, learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on records. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that, according to the informant, the incident had taken place on 30.11.2019 at 11.am. But the first information came to be filed on 30.12.2019 at 5.30 pm. There is a absolutely no reasonable grounds for the delay caused in filing the complaint. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that Annexure-C is the copy of the complaint lodged by accused Nos.1 to 5 with the Executive Engineer, PWD Madikeri on 30.11.2019 regarding the conduct of respondent No.2 in coming to the office fully drunk, abusing the employees in filthy language and criminally intimidating that he will file a complaint against them, invoking the provisions of SC & ST Act. This - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:8287 CRL.P No. 266 of 2020 complaint discloses that on the said date, it was respondent No.2 who abused the petitioners under the influence of alcohol and threatened them of filing the false complaint, by invoking the provisions of SC & ST Act and using it as a weapon which is not permitted under law. 6. Learned counsel submits that respondent No.2 is a Civil Contractor. Immediately after completing the work he has to upload all the required documents online and the payment will also be done online. There was no necessity for respondent No.2 to approach the petitioners in the office. 7. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hitesh Verma v/s State of Uttarakhand and Another 1 to contend that public office is distinguishable by the word "Public View" used in the Special enactment. It is not the contention of respondent No.2 that the incident had taken place within the public view. Under such circumstances, he prays for allowing the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings. 1 (2020) 10 SCC 710 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:8287 CRL.P No. 266 of 2020 8. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent No.2 submit in unison that there are prima facie materials to proceed against the petitioners. The investigation is not undertaken. Under such circumstances, the criminal proceedings is not required to be quashed. Accordingly, pray for dismissal of the petition. 9. In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: “Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?" My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following: - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:8287 CRL.P No. 266 of 2020 R E A S O N S 10. It is the contention of respondent No.2 that on 30.11.2019, when he approached petitioners Nos.1 and 2 in their office, they abused him in filthy language by referring to his caste with the intention to defame him. When again he went to their office on 23.12.2019, they again abused him and committed the offence. It is also stated that accused No.1 slapped him by holding him and criminally intimidated him. It is stated that accused Nos. 4 and 5 are the contract workers who have supported accused Nos.1 to 2. With these allegations, respondent No.2 filed the first information on 30.12.2019 at 5.30 pm. The incident is said to have taken place on 30.11.2019 at 11.am and again on 23.12.2019. There is delay of about one month in filing the first information. The delay is not satisfactorily explained. 11. The petitioners have produced Annexure-C - copy of the complaint dated 30.11.2019 filed by all the employees of the office of PWD at Madikeri, Kodagu District, complaining about the conduct of respondent No.2 - Civil Contractor. It is stated that, he came to the office fully drunk and started abusing all the employees in filthy language and criminally - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:8287 CRL.P No. 266 of 2020 intimidated them of filing criminal complaint against them by invoking the provisions of SC & ST Act. 12. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has no explanation whatsoever regarding the complaint, which was promptly filed on the date of incident i.e., on 30.11.2019 itself by all the employees of the office of PWD at Madikeri, Kodagu District. Moreover, it is a specific contention of the petitioners that on completing the contract work, respondent No.2 is required to upload all the documents online seeking clearance of the bill and the bill will be cleared by transferring the amount to the account of respondent No.2. This fact is also not disputed by learned counsel for respondent No.2. All these facts and circumstance, prima facie leads to the conclusion, that respondent No.2 who committed the criminal acts on 30.11.2019 as complained by the employees of the office of PWD at Madikeri with their higher officer taken advantage of the beneficial provisions under Special Enactment, forgetting about the purpose for which the same was enacted. The beneficial legislation was enacted to support and protect the interest of the helpless persons belonging to Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes. It was never intended to be used as a - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:8287 CRL.P No. 266 of 2020 weapon to threaten public servants who are discharging their official duty in the office. It is yet another classic case of misusing the provisions of SC & ST Act by a member of the community. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Hitesh Verma (supra) referred to the provisions under Special Enactment and discussed about the key ingredients of the provisions i.e., to insult or intimidate "in any place within public view" and refer to its earlier decision in Swaran Singh v/s State2, where the Court has drawn distinctions between the expressions "public place" and "in any place within public view" to hold that the offences committed outside the building which could be seen by someone from the road the same could be said to be a place within public view. Per contra, if the offences committed inside the building where no members of public are there then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view. In the present case, even according to respondent No.2, the offence in question was committed inside the office, where accused Nos.1 to 5 were working and all of them have 2 (2008) 8 SCC 435 - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:8287 CRL.P No. 266 of 2020 committed the offence. I do not find any prima facie materials to support the contention that the offence in question was committed by the petitioners with in the public view. But on the contrary, the copy of the complaint produced by the petitioners goes against respondent No.2 which shows his conduct in misusing the provisions of the Special Enactment. Hence, I am of the opinion that initiation of criminal proceedings is in clear abuse of the process of law and the same is liable to be quashed. 14. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the ‘Affirmative’ and proceed to pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is allowed. (ii) The FIR registered in Crime No.91/2019 of Madikeri Town Police Station, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va)(vii) of SC/ST (POA) Act, is hereby quashed. - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:8287 CRL.P No. 266 of 2020 In view of disposal of the main petition, pending IA No.1 of 2024 stands disposed of. Sd/- (M G UMA) JUDGE SPV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19