- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994 CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100360 OF 2021 (397 OF Cr.PC/438 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR, DCRE BELAGAVI, THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA) AND: 1. SMT. SRIDEVI D/O. VASANT TELAGAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NIL, R/O. KELAGERI ROAD, DHARWAD, DHARWAD-580001. 2. SMT. JANAKIBAI D/O. VASANT TELAGAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NIL, R/O. KELAGERI ROAD, DHARWAD, DHARWAD-580001. 3. SRI. SHRIKANT S/O. TIPPANNA TELAGAR Digitally signed by CHANDRASHEKAR LAXMAN KATTIMANI Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994 CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021 AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NIL, R/O. KELAGERI ROAD, DHARWAD, DHARWAD-580001. 4. SRI. VASANT S/O. BABU TELAGAR, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NIL, R/O. KELAGERI ROAD, DHARWAD, DHARWAD-580001. 5. SRI. VINAYAK S/O. SRIPADBHAT JOSHI, AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NIL, H.NO.38, 2ND CROSS, SRINAGAR EXTENSION, UNKAL, DIST. DHARWAD, …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S. R. HEGDE, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. BAHUBALI A. DANAWADE, ADV. FOR R5) THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 397 (3) R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN SPL.(SC/ST) C.C.NO.17/2017 DATED 30.05.2020 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2020 PASSED IN SPL.(SC/ST) C.C.NO.17/2017 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD AND DIRECT THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD TO PROCEED WITH TRIAL IN SPL.(SC/ST) C.C.NO.17/2017 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 171, 181, 196, 198, 420 OF IPC AND ALSO UNDER SECTION 3(i)(ix) AND SECTION 4 OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND ALSO UNDER SECTION 5(a) AND 5(b) OF OTHER BACKWARD CLASSES RESERVATION ACT, 1990, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994 CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) This revision petition is filed seeking prayer to set aside the order dated 30.05.2020 passed in SPL.(SC/ST) CC.No.17/2017 by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’, for short) and further direction to direct the said Court to proceed with the trial of the aforesaid case against the respondents herein. 2. Heard Sri.Praveen K.Uppar, learned Additional Government Advocate and Sri.Sagar R.Hegde, learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 4. 3. The case of the prosecution is that accused No.4 who is the Government employee obtained the caste certificate from the Tahsildar, Dharwad as ‘Hindu Bhovi’ caste on 29.06.2005 by furnishing false information. It is further case of the prosecution that accused No.1 and 2 are the daughters of accused No.4, accused No.3 is the grandson of accused No.4 and they all have taken the benefits as ‘Hindu Bhovi’ caste even though they originally belong to ‘Hindu Bhoyi’ caste which comes under ‘Category-I’ caste. The aforesaid complaint was - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994 CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021 lodged by Police Inspector, DCRB, Belagavi before the Dharwad Sub Urban Police Station and the same is registered as Crime No.214/2011. The Investigating Officer after completion of the investigation, filed a charge sheet against the accused No.1 to 5 for the offences punishable under Sections 171, 181, 196, 198, 420 of the Indian Penal code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), Sections 3(i)(ix) and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘SC/ST POA Act’) and Sections 5(a) and 5(b) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 1990 (for short, ‘OBC Act’). The accused No.1 to 4 filed an application seeking for discharge which came to be allowed by the trial Court considering the charge sheet material and the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of THE DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM DIVISION AND ORS. V. BHOVI SAMAJA SEVA SANGHA AND ORS. reported in ILR 2003 KAR 1584. Being aggrieved, the State has filed this revision petition. 4. The case of the prosecution is that the trial Court has committed an error in allowing the application for discharge filed by the accused without going for trial, which is required to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994 CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021 be interfered with in this petition. It is submitted that the respondent No.4 who is a Government employee admittedly, belongs to ‘Hindu Bhoyi’ Community which is ‘Category-I’ caste. However, he has furnished false information to the jurisdictional Tahsildar and obtained caste certificate and claimed the benefit as a person belonging to Scheduled Caste. Similarly, the other accused who are the daughters and grandson, furnished incorrect information and are enjoying the benefit for the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and these aspects are required to be thoroughly examined during the trial. However, the Special Court discharged the accused without any basis. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by directing the Special Court to try the offences alleged against the respondents. 5. Per contra, Sri.Praveen K.Uppar, learned Additional Government Advocate supports the impugned order of the Special Court and submits that this Court in the case of BHOVI SAMAJA SEVA SANGHA referred supra, has clearly held that the word ‘Bhoyi’ is synonyms to ‘Bhovi’ which is a Scheduled Caste and considering the same, a finding is recorded by the trial - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994 CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021 Court that the accused have not furnished any false information to the Tahsildar, Dharwad, while obtaining the caste certificate, which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to dismiss the petition. 6. I have heard the arguments of learned Additional Government Advocate and learned counsels for respondents No.1 to 4 and meticulously perused the material available on record. 7. The material on record indicates that the Police Inspector, DCRB, Belagavi, filed a written complaint to the Station Officer, Dharwad Sub-Urban Police station stating that accused No.4 has furnished false information to the Tahsildar, Dharwad and obtained ‘Hindu Bhovi’ caste certificate on 29.06.2005 and taking advantage of the false caste certificate, he has continued in the Government employment. Similarly accused Nos.1 and 2-daughters of the accused No.4 are enjoying the benefit of ‘Hindu Bhovi’ caste and accused No.3 grandson of the accused No.4 furnished incorrect information that he belongs to ‘Valmiki Community’. The jurisdictional Police investigated the complaint in Crime No.214/2011 and on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994 CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021 completion of investigation, filed a charge sheet on 23.04.2017 for the offences punishable under Sections 171, 181, 196, 198, 420 of the IPC, Sections 3(i)(ix) and 4 of the SC/ST POA Act and Sections 5(a) and 5(b) of the OBC Act. In the said proceedings, the accused had filed an application under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking discharge. The trial Court evaluated the charge sheet material and came to a conclusion that the accused No.4 is working as a government employee in All India Radio, obtained the caste certificate as ‘Hindu Bhovi’. The case of the prosecution is that the accused No.4 belongs to ‘Hindu Bhoyi’, which is ‘Category-I caste’ and Other Backward Class caste and not a Scheduled Caste. The trial Court considered the records like school certificate, the service records of the brothers of accused No.4, it has considered the statement on record of the mother of the accused No.4. Those records clearly indicate that the accused No.4 belongs to ‘Hindu Bhoyi’ Community. The mother of the accused No.4 also categorically stated in her statement that they are not in the avocation of stone crushing. The trial Court considering the charge sheet material, has come to conclusion that the accused No.4 has furnished correct information and - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994 CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021 obtained the certificate that she belongs to ‘Hindu Bhoyi’ Community and there is no false information furnished by her. The records indicate that the accused Nos.1 and 2 being the daughters of accused No.4, admittedly, are not in any Government employment and there is no material on record to indicate that they have obtained any benefit claiming as a person belongs to Scheduled Caste. Furthermore, the trial Court has clearly recorded the finding that the accused No.4 has not furnished any false information to the Tahsildar while obtaining the caste certificate. Insofar as accused No.3 is concerned, the trial Court has rightly recorded the finding that the accused No.3 belongs to ‘Valmiki Community’ as his father belongs to the said community and he acquires the caste by paternity. The said finding of the trial Court is consonance with the settled position of law. 8. The records indicate that accused No.4, 1 and 2 are belonging to ‘Hindu Bhoyi’ Community. Now the question is, whether the ‘Hindu Bhoyi’ is a Scheduled Caste or not. The said issue is no more res-integra. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of BHOVI SAMAJA SEVA SANGHA referred supra, and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994 CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021 by considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S MILING AND ORS. and Full Bench decision in the case of V. BASAVLINGAPPA V/S D. MUNICHINNAPPA AND ORS. has held as under: “5. The Apex Court in its order in the case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. MILIND AN ORS has referred to the earlier Full Bench decision in V. BASAVLINGAPPA v. D. MUNICHINNAPPA AND ORS. in paras 15 and 16 has held that having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the case wherein there was no caste by name, Voddar in the State of Mysore at the time of Notification, the Court held that it was necessary to find out as to which caste was included as Voddar caste in the Notification and has observed as follows:- "Thereafter looking to the peculiar circumstances of the case, the Court went on to say that (Para 7 of AIR):- "The difficulty in the present case arises from the fact (which was not disputed before the High Court) that in the Mysore State as it was before the re- organization of 1956 there was no caste known a Bhovi at all. The order refers to a scheduled caste known as Bhovi in the Mysore State as it was before 1956 and therefore it must be accepted that there was some caste which the president intended to include after - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994 CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021 consultation with the Rajpramukh in the Order when the Order mentions the caste Bhovi as a scheduled caste. It cannot be accepted that the President included the caste Bhovi in the Order though there was no such caste at all in the Mysore State as it existed before 1956. But when it is not disputed that there was no caste specifically known as Bhovi in the Mysore State before 1956, the only course open to Courts to find out which caste was meant by Bhovi is to take evidence in that behalf. If there was a caste known as Bhovi as such in the Mysore State as it existed before 1956, evidence could not be given to prove that any other caste was included in the Bhovi caste. But when the undisputed fact is that there was no caste specifically known as Bhovi in the Mysore State as it existed before 1956 and one finds a caste mentioned as Bhovi in the Order, one has to determine which was the caste which was meant by that word on its inclusion in the Order. It is this peculiar circumstance therefore which necessitated the taking of evidence to determine which was the caste which was meant by the word "Bhovi" used in the Order, when no caste was specifically known as Bhovi in the Mysore State before the re-organization of 1956." Further, in para 18 of the Milind's case, it is observed that a Constitution Bench in its earlier decision in BHAIYALAL v. HARIKISHAN SINGHJANU/SC/0213/1965: [1965]2SCR877 also, has referred to BASAVLINGAPPA'S case and has held that in the unusual circumstances of the case, the Court was justified in holding that Voddar - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994 CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021 caste was the same as Bhovi caste within the meaning of the Order and it was an exception to the normal rule. In para 27 of Milind's case, the Supreme Court has observed as follows:- "Being in respectful agreement, we reaffirm the ratio of the two Constitution Bench judgments aforementioned and state in clear terms that no enquiry at all is permissible and no evidence can be let in, to find out and decide that if any tribe or tribal community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal community is included within the scope and meaning of the concerned Entry in the Presidential Order when it is not so expressly or specifically included. Hence we answer the question No. 1 in negative." This Court in the case of VIRUPAKSHAPPA v. HANUMANTHA has considered the question and has referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Basavlingappa's case and also Milind's case and has observed as follows:- "8. Now the question that arises for consideration is whether there has been any change in the order made by the Government. In the order issued on 27.7.1977 at SI. No. 23 Bhovi caste is included as a Scheduled Caste. Thereafter Government of Karnataka has issued an order on 27th March 1980 showing the list of Scheduled Caste referring to SI. No. 23 as Bhovi and equivalent words or synonyms as Od, Odde, Vaddar, Waddar and Woddar. However, it is made clear in the Order itself - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994 CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021 that this list is not intended and shall not be treated as an alteration or amendment of the Schedule to the Presidential Order specifying Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in relation to the Karnataka State and therefore this order is not of much consequence. What was of consequence was, what was meant by Bhovi in the Presidential Order. But the Supreme Court already considered the same in Basavalingappa's case and has held that Bhovi caste will include Voddar which was also known as Boyi and Bovi. In that view, we do not think it is open to the appellants to contend that the caste described as Bovi could not have been treated as Scheduled Caste. Whatever might have been the references that have been made in the Glossary of Terms or series of Reports that have been submitted to the Government by the Backward Class Commission, they may not be of such relevance as what we have to interpret in the order of the President issued under Article 341 of the Constitution. When that has already been done by the Supreme Court it is not open for us to re-examine that questions”. 6. The learned Government Advocate has not given able to dispute that the controversy considered by the Apex Court in Basavalingappa’s case and decision of this Court in Virupaksha’s case referred to above fully answers the question arising for determination in the writ petition and the learned Single Judge has referred to the said decisions and passed the Orders which have been impugned in these appeals. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994 CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021 9. The aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by this Court, clearly indicates that ‘Bovi’, ‘Boyi’, ‘Bhoi’ are the synonyms to ‘Bhovi’ Community which belong to Scheduled Caste. In the case on hand, the accused No.4 belong to ‘Boyi’ Community which is synonym to ‘Bhovi’ Community which belongs to Scheduled Caste as per the presidential order specifying Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. The trial Court considering the charge sheet material, has rightly come to conclusion that accused No.4 has not furnished false information in the declaration to the Tahsildar, Dharwad and obtained the caste certificate. I do not find any error or perversity in the finding recorded by the trial Court calling for interference in this petition. For the aforementioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly, petition is dismissed as devoid of merits. Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL) JUDGE RH-para 1 to 3 RKM-para 4 to end CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1