- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39374 CRL.P No. 5708 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5708 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. SRI SHIVA PRAKASH A.G.K. S/O. GOVINDA SETTY AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS 2. SMT. PAVITHRA PRAKASH W/O. SHIVA PRAKASH A.G.K AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO.174/3, 1ST MAIN ROAD SESHADRIPURAM BENGLAURU-560 020 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI I. THARANATH POOJARY, SR. COUNSEL FOR; SMT. VEENA T. N., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE SHESHADRIPURAM SUB-DIVISION REP. BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU-560 020 2. SRI NARASIMHA S/O. CHIKKANARASAIAH R/AT NO.174/2, 1ST MAIN ROAD Digitally signed by LAKSHMINARAYAN N Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39374 CRL.P No. 5708 of 2022 J. LINGAIAH ROAD SHESHADRIPURAM BENGALURU-560 020 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. N. ANITHA GIRISH, H.C.G.P., FOR R-1/STATE; SRI NISHANTH A.V., ADVOCATE FOR R-2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN SPL.C.NO.766/2021 FILED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(1)(R)(S) OF THE SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT AND SECTIONS 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BENGALURU (CCH-71) AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO. THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI ORAL ORDER Petitioners who are arraigned as Nos.1 and 2 have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in Spl.C.No.766/2021, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39374 CRL.P No. 5708 of 2022 Atrocities) Act ('SC/ST(POA) Act' for short) and Sections 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC pending on the file of 70th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and the Special Court, Bengaluru. 2. In support of the petition, petitioners i.e, accused Nos.1 and 2 have contended that they are husband and wife. Complainant is their immediate neighbour. They are sharing a common passage to their residential houses. Complainant has constructed a 5 storey commercial building in violation of sanction plan and building bye-laws. The common passage and the illegal building are the subject matter of several litigations between the parties before this Court as well as Civil Court. Contempt Petition initiated against complainant is pending before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 2.1 It is alleged that on 31.08.2020, complainant and petitioners visited the jurisdictional police station for enquiry in relation to a complaint filed by the complainant. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39374 CRL.P No. 5708 of 2022 After the enquiry, when complainant and his son were returning back home, at around 9.30 p.m. at Swastik Circle, near Vishnuvardhan Statue, Sheshadripuram, petitioners hurled abuses at the complainant and his son referring to their caste. 2.2 There is inordinate delay of nearly two weeks in filing the complaint. Petitioners approached this Court in Crl.P.No.6101/2020 for quashing the criminal proceedings. It came to be rejected on 29.01.2021, on the ground that it was premature. However, liberty was reserved to them to file a fresh petition after charge sheet is filed. 2.3 Now that the charge sheet is filed, petitioners have filed this petition. Petitioners are the absolute owner of the property No.174/3 having purchased during 2005. They have constructed house during 2016. Complainant who is their neighbour started constructing a commercial complex during 2017. Earlier these properties were common and complainant and petitioners have purchased - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39374 CRL.P No. 5708 of 2022 their respective properties from the same owner. There is a common passage leading to their respective properties. 2.4 Since, complainant started putting up construction, violating sanction plan and building bye-laws, petitioners approached the Competent Authority. When no action was taken, they filed W.P.No.34951/2017. Vide order dated 09.08.2017, this Court directed parties to maintain status-quo. During the pendency of the petition, BBMP passed orders under Section 321(3) of Municipal Corporation Act, for demolition of the portion of the building constructed illegally. However, no further action was taken. Petitioner No.2 has also filed contempt petition before this Court in CCC.No.1772/2019 (Annexure-G & H) against the complainant for violating the status-quo order. 2.5 Aggrieved by the same, complainant started filing false and frivolous complaint. The jurisdictional police hand in glove with the complainant started harassing - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39374 CRL.P No. 5708 of 2022 petitioners. They even coerced the petitioners to give statement to the effect that dispute is settled with regard to illegal construction and the contempt petition was dismissed. However, later on it was restored in a review petition filed by the petitioner. Against the said order, complainant has approached the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP(Crl)No.2616/2020 and it is pending for consideration. 2.6 In the meanwhile, complainant has also approached the BBMP authorities, alleging violation in the construction made by petitioner and BBMP authorities have passed orders under Section 321(3) of Municipal Corporation Act against petitioners and they have filed W.P.No.34951/2017 before this Court. The demolition order passed against the complainant is the subject matter of Appeal No.774/2019 before KAT. 2.7 Misusing the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act, the complainant and his family have filed series of frivolous complaints against the petitioners before the very same - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39374 CRL.P No. 5708 of 2022 police station to harass the and to coerce them to compromise so that his illegal building is saved from demolition. One such complaint was treated as NCR by the concerned police. Thereafter another complaint came to be filed on 30.12.2019 racking up the same issue related to a well which is attached to house of petitioners and also common passage. Under the guise of enquiry, petitioners were summoned to the police station on 31.08.2021. Despite long wait when no enquiry was conducted, they were returning home, when the alleged incident took place at Swastik Circle. Petitioners had no occasion to go to the said spot while returning home. 2.8 After a prolong delay of nearly 12 days, a false complaint is filed. Purushotham and Narasimhulu, who are stated to be the eye witnesses are close friends of complainant. Except these no other witnesses are cited even though the alleged incident took place in a public place. The CCTV footages in the said area are also not collected which would have been proof of alleged - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39374 CRL.P No. 5708 of 2022 involvement of the petitioners. This complaint is an off shoot of series of disputes pending between the parties. In the light of the dispute pending between the parties, continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence, the petition. 3. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for petitioners has relied upon the following decisions: i) State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. M.Madhusudhan Rao (Madhusudhan Rao)1 ii) Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarkhand and Ors. (Hitesh Verma)2 iii) Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. (Gorige Pentaiah)3 iv) Khuman Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Khuman Singh)4 v) Mohd Wajid and Anr. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.(Mohd. Wajid)5 vi) Kailashben Mahendrabhai Vs. State of Maharashtra (Kailashben Mahendrabhai)6 vii) Rasik Lal Patel Vs. State of Karnataka (Rasik Lal Patel)7 1 (2008) 15 SCC 582 2 (2020) 10 SCC 710 3 (2008) 12 SCC 531 4 (2020) 18 SCC 763 5 (2023) 20 SCC 219 6 (2024) SCC Online SC 2621 7 Crl.P.No.5497/2022 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39374 CRL.P No. 5708 of 2022 4. On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State and learned counsel representing respondent No.2 would submit that complainant and petitioners are neighbours. They are using a common passage for reaching their respective properties. When petitioners were putting up construction, complainant co-operated with him. However, when complainant started construction, petitioners caused unnecessary trouble and with great difficulty, he completed the construction. Since complainant and his family belong to Scheduled Caste, the petitioners were demanding that they should not come in front of them. They are also preventing complainant and his family members using water from the common well, saying that since they belong to Scheduled Caste, they should not use the water. 4.1. A compromise was effected between them by the leaders of the area. For some time complainant collected drinking water from the said well. A dispute is - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39374 CRL.P No. 5708 of 2022 pending in the Court regarding common passage. All of a sudden petitioners blocked the common passage by fixing an iron gate and thereby preventing them from using well water. In this connection, complainant lodged a complaint with the Police Commissioner. On 31.08.2020, in connection with the said compliant, they were summoned to the police station. 4.2. It is further alleged that around 9.30 p.m, when complainant and his son were returning and were at Swastik Circle, near the Vishnuvardhan Statute, petitioners abused them, referring to their caste and said that even though they go to the police station or wherever, they would not be spared. They also abused complainant and his son Naresh referring to his caste. Even though, complainant and his son went back to the police station, to bring it to the notice of police officer, the concerned Officer was not available. Due to his age and ill health petitioner No.1 could not file the complaint on the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39374 CRL.P No. 5708 of 2022 next date and therefore, he is filing the complaint on 12.09.2020. 4.3. Based on the complaint, the concerned police have registered a case in Cr.No.59/2020 and after conducting detailed investigation filed charge sheet against the petitioners. There is prima facie material to proceed against the petitioners. In the light of the same, criminal proceedings cannot be quashed without providing opportunity to the prosecution to establish the allegations made against the petitioners and pray to dismiss the petition. 5. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has relied upon the following decisions: (i) State of A.P. Vs Golconda Linga Swamy and another (Golconda Linga Swamy)8 (ii) Skoda Auto Volkswagen (India) Private Limited Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (Skoda Auto Volkswagen)9 (iii) R P Kapur Vs State of Punjab (R P Kapur)10 8 (2004) 6 SCC 522 9 (2021) 5 SCC 795 10 (1960) SCC OnLine SC 21 - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39374 CRL.P No. 5708 of 2022 (iv) Kathyayini Vs Sidharth P S Reddy and Others (Kathyayini)11 (v) Jayavant Kalasappa Kale Vs. Suresh Kalasappa Kale and others (Jayavant Kalasappa Kale)12 (vi) State of Haryana and others Vs. Bhajan Lal and others (Bhajan Lal)13 (vii) HMT Watches Limited Vs. M A Abida and another (HMT Watches Limited)14 (viii) Swaran Singh and others Vs. State through standing counsel and another (Swaran Singh)15 (ix) Hitesh Verma Vs State of Uttarakhand and another (Hitesh Verma)16 6. Heard arguments and perused the record. 7. In the light of the ratio in the decisions relied upon by both parties it is necessary to examine whether this is fit case to quash in the criminal proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 8. Thus, petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 and 2 are seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings initiated against them, on the ground that in 11 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1428 12 Crl.P.No.100333/2020 Dt 21.04.2023 13 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 14 (2015) 11 SCC 776 15 (2008) 8 SCC 435 16 (2020) 10 SCC 710 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39374 CRL.P No. 5708 of 2022 the light of various litigations pending between them, a false complaint came to be filed and without conducting proper investigation, mechanically, charge sheet is filed and continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court. 9. It is not in dispute that petitioners and complainant are neighbours having purchased their properties from a common owner. They are having common passage as an access to their properties. There is also a well adjoining the house of petitioners in which complainant claim right to collect water. It appears both parties have put up construction in their properties by violating the bye-laws and at the instance of each other, the BBMP has passed orders under Section 321(3) of Municipal Corporation Act, to demolish that portion of building, which is constructed illegally and both of them have approached the High Court and Supreme Court. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39374 CRL.P No. 5708 of 2022 10. From the complaint averments and the petition averments, it is evident that alleging that he was prevented from using water from the well, complainant approached the respondent /police and in that connection on 31.08.2020, the concerned police summoned both petitioners and complainant to the police station. Complainant went along with his son. It is stated that since the concerned police officer was not in the police station, they left the PS and returning. It is alleged by the complainant that when they were at Swastik Circle, near the statute of Vishnuvardhan, Sheshadripuram, petitioners abused complainant and his son referring to their caste. Though immediately, complainant and his son went back to the police station, since the police officer was not there, they did not file complaint and due to ill health of the complainant, there is delay in filing the complaint. 11. The request of the petitioners for quashing of criminal proceedings is to be appreciated in the light of the fact that there is bad blood and ill will between the parties, - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39374 CRL.P No. 5708 of 2022 with regard to their properties, common passage and use of well water and their dispute has reached the Hon'ble Supreme Court. In the charge sheet, the investigating officer has cited CW-3 Purushotham and CW-4 Narasimhulu as eye witnesses to the incident. In their statement, they have stated that they were knowing complainant and his son and they were interacting with each other and also knew about the dispute between petitioners and complainant. Their statements are recorded as though at the time of incident, they had come to a medical store to purchase medicine and saw the incident. In fact they spoke to complainant as to what happened and he requested them to go home and he will file the complaint and went to the police station. 12. However, in the complaint, the fact of CWs-3 and 4 being present at the spot and seen the incident and they met the complainant and his son and enquired as to what happened is not forthcoming. It is pertinent to note that these two witnesses also belongs to Scheduled Caste. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39374 CRL.P No. 5708 of 2022 Except them, the investigation officer has not cited any other eye witness to the alleged incident although the said incident took place in a public place on a busy road. It is true that a FIR need not be an encyclopedia of the entire prosecution case. However, the fact that when the alleged incident took place, CWs-3 and 4 were present and they gone to the extent of enquiring complainant as to what happened the said fact would not have slipped the mind of the complainant when he lodged the complaint, especially when they were aware of the dispute between the complainant and petitioners. 13. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for petitioners, the investigating officer has not chosen to collect the CCTV footage of the said area to ascertain about the involvement of petitioners and also the presence of CWs-3 and 4 at the scene of occurrence and having seen the same. - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39374 CRL.P No. 5708 of 2022 14. There is also inordinate delay in filing the complaint. If at all higher police officer was not available when complainant and his son immediately rushed back to the police station, there was no impediment to file the complaint with the officer who was in-charge of the police station. The complaint came to be filed 12 days after the alleged incident. The complainant has stated that he was suffering from ill health and as such could not file the complaint immediately. However, the investigating officer has not collected any evidence to show that complainant was suffering from ill health and as such could not file the complaint immediately. Even where it is accepted that complainant was not in a position to file the complaint, there was no impediment for his son i.e., CW-2 to file the complaint, who is also claimed to be an eye witness as well as the victim. 15. It is true that at the stage of considering a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C, it is not open to the High Court to discuss the merits of the evidence placed in - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39374 CRL.P No. 5708 of 2022 the charge sheet by the prosecution. However, in the present case, in light of the ill will and the litigations pending between the parties, when the complainant has chosen to file a fresh complaint, these facts are relevant and the possibility of complainant filing false complaint to further his case cannot be ruled out. It becomes relevant to examine whether a criminal prosecution on such evidence should be allowed to continue. In view of the discrepancy in the case put forth by the prosecution, this Court is of the considered opinion that the complainant has chosen to misuse the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act to falsely implicate the petitioners and as such continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and therefore, they are liable to be quashed and accordingly the following: ORDER (i) Petition filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 482 Cr.P.C is hereby allowed. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:39374 CRL.P No. 5708 of 2022 (ii) The criminal proceedings initiated against petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Spl.C.No.766/2021, for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Caste & Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Sections 504, 506 r/w 34 of IPC on the file of LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and the Special Court, Bengaluru is hereby quashed. (iii) The Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial court through e-mail. Sd/- (J.M.KHAZI) JUDGE RR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28