- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3093 CRL.P No. 101160 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101160 OF 2023 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. ERAPPA TIMMANAGOUDA (@ S.T. EARAPPA) AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227. 2. SUMITRA W/O. ERAPPA AGE. 52 YEAR, OCC. HOUSEHOLD, R/O. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227. 3. RAJESH S/O. IRAPPA R/O. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227. 4. BHARATHI @ BHAGYALAKSHMI N. D/O. SRINIVASARAO, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. HEALTH OFFICER, R/O. GANGAVATI, DIST. KOPPAL-583227. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.B.GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD, THROUGH GANGAVATHI, TOWM POLICE STATION. 2. SAROJAMMA VIRUPANNA NAYAK AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. LABOURER, R/O. 25TH WARD, VENTACHARYA COLONY, GANGAVATHI, DIST. KOPPAL. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEENA Y.DEVAREDDIYAVARA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. RAGHAVENDRA PUROHIT, ADV. FOR R2) Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.02.19 13:15:38 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3093 CRL.P No. 101160 of 2023 THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C SEEKING TO, QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 IN GANGAVATHI TOWN P.S.CR.NO.28/2023 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/SEC. 323, 324, 354, 355, 504, 506 R/W. 34 OF INDIAN PENAL CODE AND U/SEC. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT, 2015, ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER 1. The petitioners challenge the registration of an FIR for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 354, 355, 504, and 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 (SC/ST (POA) Act). 2. Respondent No.2 lodged the FIR, claiming to be the owner of the subject land, which was previously government property. She alleged that due to discrepancies in land measurements, the petitioners, without any right or title, encroached on her land while constructing on the adjacent property. When she questioned them, the accused allegedly assaulted and abused her with reference to her caste and threatened her with dire consequences. 3. The petitioners’ learned counsel submitted that they were constructing on their own land, and when Respondent No.2 and her husband interfered, they were compelled to file O.S. No. 81/2022 for a temporary injunction. The Trial Court, by an order - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3093 CRL.P No. 101160 of 2023 dated 04.02.2022, granted an injunction restraining Respondent No.2 and her husband from interfering with the petitioners’ possession. The FIR, lodged on 07.02.2023, for an incident allegedly occurring on 04.02.2023, was thus an afterthought to circumvent the injunction order. 4. It was further contended that except for oral allegations, there are no specific details regarding how each accused abused Respondent No.2 with reference to her caste. 5. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 argued that the FIR discloses the commission of offences, and the veracity of the allegations requires investigation, which cannot be examined in this petition. 6. The petitioners have already obtained a temporary injunction in O.S. No. 81/2022, restraining Respondent No.2 and her husband from interfering with the suit property. The FIR was lodged 0n 07.02.2022 after an injunction order dated 04.02.2022 was granted, indicating that it was filed to circumvent the order of temporary injunction for the incident that had allegedly taken place on 04.02.2022. 7. The FIR contains only general and omnibus allegations, with no specific overt acts detailing how each accused abused Respondent No.2 with reference to her caste or assaulted her. 8. The dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature but has been given a criminal color with mala fide intent to - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:3093 CRL.P No. 101160 of 2023 circumvent the injunction order. Allowing the criminal proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 9. In such circumstances, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned first information report in Crime No.28/2023 registered by Ganagavathi Town Police Station is hereby quashed. Sd/- (HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE AC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 84