- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34115 CRL.P No. 11872 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO.11872 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. MANGALAMMA W/O SHIVARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/A RAJAGERE HUTRIDURGA HOBLI KUNIGAL, TUMKURU, KARNATAKA – 572126 2. SRI PADMARAJU GRAJU G @ RAJU S/O GANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RAJAGERE HUTRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL, TUMKURU, KARNATAKA – 572126 3. SRI RAMESH R S/O RAJANNA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RAJAGERE HUTRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL, TUMKURU, KARNATAKA – 572126 4. SRI SHIVARAMAIAH S/O VENKATAIAH AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RAJAGERE HUTRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL, TUMKURU, KARNATAKA – 572126 Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34115 CRL.P No. 11872 of 2025 5. SRI RAMANJANEY S/O THAMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS RAJAGERE HUTRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL, TUMKURU, KARNATAKA – 572126 6. SR NAGARAJU R K S/O KARIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RAJAGERE HUTRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL, TUMKURU, KARNATAKA – 572126 7. SRI KARIYAPPA S/O LATE GUDDAIAH AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS RAJAGERE HUTRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL, TUMKURU, KARNATAKA – 572126 8. SMT. LATHA M S W/O JAYARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RAJAGERE, SONDALAGERE POST, HUTRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL, TUMKURU, KARNATAKA – 572126 9. SRI SATHISH R S/O RAMANJANEY AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS RAJAGERE HUTRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL, TUMKURU, KARNATAKA – 572126 10. SRI SEETHARAMA S/O BACHAIAH AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34115 CRL.P No. 11872 of 2025 C-075, RAJAGERE, SONDALAGERE POST, HUTRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL, TUMKURU, KARNATAKA – 572126 11. SMT. VARALAKSHMI W/O SHIVARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS RAJAGERE, SONDALAGERE POST, HUTRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL, TUMKURU, KARNATAKA – 572126 12. SMT. NAGAMMA W/O NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RAJAGERE, SONDALAGERE POST, HUTRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL, TUMKURU, KARNATAKA – 572126 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHIVCHARAN R, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KUNIGAL POLICE STATION, TUMAKURU DISTRICT -572130. 2. SMT. MANJULA T.J, W/O HARISH, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, R/O RAJGERE VILLAGE, HUTRIDURGA HOBLI, KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 572130 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL. SPP FOR R1) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34115 CRL.P No. 11872 of 2025 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 528 BNSS PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.332/2025 IN 3RD ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, TUMKUR DISTRICT DATED 23.07.2025 REGISTERED BY THE HULIYURDURGA P.S. TUMAKURU DISTRICT, FOR OFFENCES ALLEGEDLY P/U/S. 189(2), 191(2), 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 352, 351(2), AND 190 OF BNS, 2023, AND SEC. 3(1)(S), 3(1)(W)(I), AND 3(2)(VA) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 (AS AMENDED) AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER This petition is filed seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No.332/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2), 115(2), 118(1), 126(2), 352, 351(2) and 190 of BNS, 2023, and Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i), and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. The registration of crime is based on a written complaint lodged by respondent No.2, wherein it is alleged that - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34115 CRL.P No. 11872 of 2025 on 22.07.2025, when the Survey Officials intended to undertake a survey work relating to the disputed land, the petitioners obstructed such official duty. It is further alleged that during the course of obstruction, respondent No.2 was abused by reference to her caste and that such abusive language was directed against her on the ground that she belongs to a Scheduled Caste, thereby attracting the mischief of Section 3(1)(s) of the Act which penalises intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view. 3. The complaint also contains an allegation that respondent No.2 was subjected to physical assault and manhandling, which in the context of the allegations, is sought to be brought within the ambit of Section 3(1)(w)(i), which deals with intentionally touching a woman belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe knowing that she belongs to such category, and thereby assaulting or using force to any woman with intent to dishonour or outrage her modesty. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34115 CRL.P No. 11872 of 2025 4. At this stage, it requires to be noticed that in order to attract the rigour of Section 3(1)(s), there must be specific allegations disclosing intentional insult or intimidation with the object of humiliating a member of a Scheduled Caste in a place within public view. Similarly, invocation of Section 3(1)(w)(i) requires a clear assertion that the assault or use of force against the complainant was with the intention of outraging her modesty and with knowledge that she belonged to a Scheduled Caste. Section 3(2)(va) further provides for enhanced punishment in respect of any offence under the Indian Penal Code or any other law, if it is committed against a person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 5. On a closer perusal of the complaint, though allegations are made regarding use of caste-related abusive language and manhandling, the substratum of the dispute appears to be with regard to boundary and survey issues between the petitioners and the uncle of the complainant. The allegations as they stand, prima facie, indicate the existence of statutory ingredients which are mandatorily required to attract - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34115 CRL.P No. 11872 of 2025 the penal consequences under Sections 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w)(i) and 3(2)(va) of the Act. The tenor of the complaint discloses that the incident arose out of a civil dispute touching upon property rights and survey demarcation, and the allegations of caste insult appear to be interwoven into this civil dispute. 6. In the light of the above, while this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings at this nascent stage, it is made clear that the Investigating Officer shall proceed with the investigation strictly in accordance with law, bearing in mind the essential ingredients of the aforesaid provisions. It is further directed that until completion of investigation, no coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners, as the dispute predominantly appears to be civil in nature relating to property boundaries. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners undertakes that the petitioners will extend full co-operation to the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation. Recording the said undertaking, the petition stands dismissed. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34115 CRL.P No. 11872 of 2025 8. In view of the dismissal of the petition, any pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE SN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44