- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7753 CRL.A No. 200370 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200370 OF 2025 (U/S 14 (A)) BETWEEN: 1. KHALEED S/O JABBARMIYA, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: EDITOR IN CHIEF BIDAR, MANJRA PRESS R/O MAILUR, BIDAR, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR. 2. KHADAR S/O JABBARMIYA, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AUTO DRIVER, R/O MAILUR, BIDAR, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR. …APPELLANTS (BY SMT. RAJESHWARI TIPPANNA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH BIDAR NEW TOWN POLICE, BIDAR, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI-585103. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7753 CRL.A No. 200370 of 2025 2. RABART S/O SHIROMANI, AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: LABOUR, R/O KEB COLONY, BIDAR, TQ. AND DIST. BIDAR-585104. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. MAHANTESH PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14- A(1) OF SC/ST (PA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 15.09.2025 PASSED BY THE ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR IN SPL. C.(SC AND ST) NO.219/2025 CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO DISCHARGE THE APPELLANTS FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 115(2), 118(1), 352, 351(2) READ WITH 3(5) OF BNS ACT 2023 AND SECTIONS 3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(V-A) OF SC/ST ACT PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BIDAR IN SPECIAL CASE (SC/ST 219/2025). THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by accused Nos.3 and 4 assailing the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bidar, in Spl.C.(SC/ST) No.219/2025 rejecting the application filed - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7753 CRL.A No. 200370 of 2025 under Section 250(2) of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Section 227 of Cr.P.C.,) seeking discharge. 2. The gist of the prosecution case is that on 01.12.2024, CW-1, who was acquainted with the present appellants as well as accused Nos.1 and 2, had allegedly negotiated a transaction for purchase of Plot No.222 in Sy.No.60/*/1 for a consideration of Rs.12,00,000/- without informing the accused. It is further alleged that the present appellants, along with accused Nos.1 and 2, threatened the complainant/CW-1 for having attempted to purchase the said plot from one Shoukat Ali and warned him not to proceed with the transaction on the premise that members of their community were residing in that locality. 3. It is further alleged that on 07.03.2025, in front of the Taluk Panchayat Office, when CW-1 was standing near the said office, the present appellants along with accused Nos.1 and 2 came there and abused him in filthy - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7753 CRL.A No. 200370 of 2025 language, questioning his intention to purchase the plot. It is alleged that by using specific caste-based abusive words, they picked up a quarrel, and during the course of the altercation, accused No.1 picked up a wooden club lying near Anmol Hotel and assaulted CW-1. It is further alleged that the present appellants along with accused No.2 kicked and physically assaulted the complainant. Consequently, CW-1 lodged a complaint, which culminated in registration of the crime. Upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed the charge-sheet alleging that the present appellants, along with accused Nos.1 and 2, assaulted and abused the complainant by taking the name of his caste. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants, reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal, submitted that the present appellants, being an Editor-in-Chief and an auto driver respectively, are in no manner concerned with the alleged incident. It is contended that their presence at the scene was only in their respective capacities and that they have - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7753 CRL.A No. 200370 of 2025 been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellants would amount to abuse of process of law. Learned counsel would also contend that the charge-sheet materials do not disclose any motive insofar as the present appellants are concerned and that despite knowing that the appellants had nothing to do with CW-1 entering into the alleged transaction, they have been falsely roped in. Therefore, it is argued that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge rejecting the discharge application suffers from perversity and warrants interference. 5. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1, referring to the charge-sheet materials, submitted that there are several eyewitnesses and sufficient incriminating material to proceed against the appellants. He would contend that the learned Sessions Judge, upon due examination of the charge-sheet materials, has rightly rejected the discharge - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7753 CRL.A No. 200370 of 2025 application and that the scope of judicial review at this stage is very limited, warranting no interference. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant also advanced arguments in support of the impugned order and contended that the order rejecting the discharge application does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity and therefore seeks dismissal of the appeal. 7. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the charge-sheet materials as well as the impugned order. 8. On perusal of the charge-sheet materials, it is evident that there are specific overt acts attributed to the present appellants. The defence set up by appellant No.1 that he is the Editor-in-Chief of a newspaper and had rushed to the spot only to video-record the incident, and that he has been falsely implicated, cannot be accepted at this stage. Similarly, the contention of appellant No.2 that - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7753 CRL.A No. 200370 of 2025 he is merely an auto driver and that accused No.1 had engaged his auto on fare also cannot be acceded to at this juncture. 9. Whether the appellants were present at the scene in the capacity of an Editor-in-Chief and an auto driver respectively is a matter to be adjudicated during trial. These are defences available to the appellants, which cannot be examined while considering an application for discharge. At the stage of discharge, the Court is required to confine its scrutiny strictly to the charge-sheet materials and nothing beyond. The learned Sessions Judge, upon examination of the charge-sheet materials, has rightly concluded that the appellants are required to face trial. 10. This Court, in exercise of its limited jurisdiction of judicial review, cannot undertake a roving enquiry or evaluate materials beyond the charge-sheet. Such an exercise is impermissible at this stage. Therefore, without - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7753 CRL.A No. 200370 of 2025 expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this Court finds that the appeal is devoid of merit and accordingly stands dismissed. All contentions of the parties are kept open. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10 Ct: SI