- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10515 CRL.P No. 102944 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102944 OF 2025 (482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. HULAPPA BANI S/O. RANGAPPA BANI, AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MURUDI VILLAGE, TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 125. 2. NINGAPPA BANI S/O. HANUMAPPA BANI, AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MURUDI VILLAGE, TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 125. 3. BASAPPA BANI S/O. RANGAPPA BANI, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MURUDI VILLAGE, TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 125. 4. SANGAPPA BANI S/O. NINGAPPA BANI, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MURUDI VILLAGE, TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 125. 5. BASAPPA BANI S/O. NINGAPPA BANI, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MURUDI VILLAGE, TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 125. 6. MAHANTESH URF MUTAPPA BANI S/O. RANGAPPA BANI, AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. MURUDI VILLAGE, TQ. ILKAL, RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10515 CRL.P No. 102944 of 2025 DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 125. 7. MANJULA URF MANJAVVA W/O. BASAVARAJ BANI, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. MURUDI VILLAGE, TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 125. 8. LALITHA BANI W/O. BASAVARAJ BANI, AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. MURUDI VILLAGE, TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 125. … PETITIONERS (BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH AMINAGAD P.S., BAGALKOTE DISTRICT, R/BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENCH AT DHARWAD-580 011. 2. RENAVVA TALWAR W/O. HANUMAPPA, AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE, R/O. MURUDI VILLAGE, TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 125. … RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS REGISTERED BEFORE AMINGAD POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.118/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 189(2), 191(2) (3), 115(2), 118(1), 74, 351(2), 352, 190 OF BNS 2023 AND SECTION 3(1) (R) (S), 3(2) (5A) OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES AMENDMENT BILL 2015 IN SPL.C/108/2024 PENDING IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, BAGALKOTE IN SO FAR AGAINST PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 6, 9 AND 12, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10515 CRL.P No. 102944 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) 1. Accused Nos.1 to 6, 9 and 12 are before this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Special Case No.108 of 2024 pending before the Court of IV-Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, arising out of Crime No.118 of 2024, registered by Amengad Police Station, Hungunda Circle, Bagalkot District for the offence punishable under Sections 189(2), 191(2) (3), 115(2), 118(1), 74, 351(2), 352, 190 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(5a) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Bill, 2015, as against them. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits that, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the present case, in view of the dispute pending between them. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10515 CRL.P No. 102944 of 2025 Even if the allegations found in the first information and the charge sheet are presumed to be true, no case for the alleged offences can be made out against the petitioners. There is no such mention in the first information that in the presence of the public, the petitioners had criminally intimidated the victim. He submits that merely for the reason that the victim belongs to the scheduled caste or scheduled tribe, the offences punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be invoked against the accused. In support of the said submission, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri Shailesh Kumar S/o. Venkatesh L. Vs. State of Karnataka, by Suryanagar Police Station and another1. 4. Per contra, learned HCGP who has opposed the petition submits that there is a prima facie case as against 1 Crl.P. No.2797/2022, DD: 17th January 2023 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10515 CRL.P No. 102944 of 2025 the accused in the present case and therefore, the prayer made in the petition is liable to be rejected. 5. From a perusal of the averments made in the first information and the allegations found in the charge sheet, it appears that there is certain civil dispute between the parties and it is in this background the alleged incident had taken place on 08.09.2024 at about 08:00 a.m., in which the accused persons had abused the first informant, assaulted her with hands and legs and also outraged her modesty. It is further alleged that, thereafter the accused criminally intimidated her and at that time the persons who were present near the spot of crime had interfered and had rescued the first informant. In the alleged incident, the victim has suffered injuries and CW13 is the Doctor, who had medically treated the victim and has issued the wound certificate. The parties, who are neighbours have a civil dispute between them and therefore, it cannot be said that the accused did not have a knowledge that the first - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10515 CRL.P No. 102944 of 2025 informant belonged to schedule caste or schedule tribe category. 6. Section 3(1)(r) provides punishment for intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; and Section 3(1)(s) provides punishment for abusing any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view. In the first information itself, it is mentioned that certain persons named in the first information were present at the spot of crime and they had rescued the first informant from the hands of accused persons. Therefore, the act of abusing the first informant referring to her caste and also intimidating her with an intent to humiliate, had taken place, in a place within public view and therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the offences punishable under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10515 CRL.P No. 102944 of 2025 Atrocities) Act, has been wrongly invoked in the present case. 7. In the first information, the victim has specifically mentioned that, she belongs to Valmiki community, which is a Scheduled Caste and the accused belongs to Kuruba community, which is Upper Caste and knowing very well that the victim belonged to Scheduled Caste, the accused persons had formed themselves into an unlawful assembly and had abused her referring to her caste name and also assaulted her thereafter. Therefore, the alleged offences under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act squarely get attracted in the present case. The same was not the situation in the case of Sri Shailesh Kumar S/o. Venkatesh L. (supra). Therefore, the judgment in the said case is of no assistance to the petitioners and no reliance can be placed on the same. It is trite that judgment can be considered as precedent and relied upon only if the same is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10515 CRL.P No. 102944 of 2025 case. Since as rightly contended by the learned HCGP, there is a prima facie case as against the petitioners herein for the charge sheeted offences, I am of the opinion that, this is not a fit case for exercising the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned criminal proceedings as against the petitioners. Accordingly, the following: ORDER The Criminal Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE Vnp / CT: BCK LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 39