- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7883 CRL.P No. 201617 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 201567 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM CRIMINAL PETITION NO.201617 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201567 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) IN CRL.P NO. 201617/2025 BETWEEN: SMT. RATIBA @ RATIBADEVI, W/O MAHANTESH ALSO KNOWN AS SMT. RATHIBA DEVI W/O MAHANTESH TIPPANNAVAR AGE: 67 YEARS, OCC: RETIRED EMPLOYEE R/O H.NO.1-892/1A/71/3A1/GF11, MAM VENKATESH APARTMENT, OLD JEWARGI ROAD, BALAJI NAGAR KALABURAGI-585102. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GANESH NAIK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH ASHOKNAGAR POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI CITY, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH-02. Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7883 CRL.P No. 201617 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 201567 of 2025 2. PRANESH BHARATNUR S/O SIDDAPPA BHARATNUR, AGED 55 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVICE, R/O H.NO.280, S.B. COLLEGE ROAD, NEAR SRI KRISHNA MANDIR, VIDYA NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585103. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. ANILKUMAR NAVADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE REGISTRATION OF FIR PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME NO.167/2025, OF ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI CITY FOR OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(5), 356 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA (BNS), 2023 AND SECTION 3(1)(P) OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 ON THE FILE OF THE COURT OF IIND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGES AT KALABURAGI. IN CRL.P NO. 201567/2025 BETWEEN: VINAYAK S/O VASANTRAO APTE, AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE R/O. 1121/9, KALYAN NAGAR, KALABURAGI-585102. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. KADLOOR SATYANARAYANACHARYA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THROUGH THE PSI, ASHOK NAGAR POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI SOUTH SUB DIVISION, KALABURAGI CITY. (RPTD. BY ASPP HC KLB-585107). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7883 CRL.P No. 201617 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 201567 of 2025 2. PRANESH BHARATNUR S/O SIDDAPPA BHARATNUR, AGE ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. OFFICIAL GAZETTED, R/O H.NO.280, VIDYANAGAR, KALABURAGI-585103. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. GOPALKRISHNA B. YADAV, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. ANILKUMAR NAVADAGI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, (NEW) UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE REGISTRATION OF THE COMPLAINT IN SO FAR AS A-1/ PETITIONER IS CONCERNED, IN CR. NO.167/2025 BY THE ASHOK NAGAR, POLICE STATION, KALABURAGI, SOUTH SUB DIVISION KALABURAGI CITY, FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(1)(P) OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT), 1989 AND SECTION 3(5), 356 OF THE BHARATIYA NYAYA SANHITA 2023, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE KALABURAGI. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER These two petitions are filed seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No.167/2025. Criminal petition No.201617/2025 is filed by accused No.2, while Criminal Petition No.201567/2025 is filed by accused No.1, a Practising Advocate, who is also implicated on the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7883 CRL.P No. 201617 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 201567 of 2025 ground that he has issued a reply notice in response to the legal notice issued by respondent No.2/complainant. 2. The gist of the complaint lodged by respondent No. 2 is as follows: The complainant/respondent No.2 lodged a complaint on 17.10.2025 alleging that accused No.2 is the owner of Plot No.2, forming part of Sy.No.21/2 of Biddapur Village, and that he had entered into an agreement for sale dated 01.08.2025 in respect of the said plot. It is further alleged that the open plot proposed to be purchased by the complainant forms part of a larger extent measuring 7 acres 27 guntas, which was originally purchased by the father of accused No.2 along with six partners, and that a civil dispute regarding ownership of Plot No.2 is pending before the competent civil court. 3. It is the case of the complainant that, in view of the pendency of the civil suit, he requested accused No.2 on 15.08.2025 to furnish nine documents relating to title - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7883 CRL.P No. 201617 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 201567 of 2025 and ownership for verification within a period of one month. The complainant further alleges that in anticipation of completing the transaction, he availed a personal loan from a bank. Since accused No.2 allegedly failed to furnish the documents despite repeated requests, the complainant claims to have issued a legal notice on 19.09.2025. In response thereto, accused No.1, a practising advocate, issued a reply notice on behalf of accused No.2 on 08.10.2025, which, according to the complainant, contained scandalous and personal remarks directed against him. On this basis, a complaint came to be registered for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(p) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 3(5) and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. Pursuant thereto, Crime No.167/2025 came to be registered. 4. These two petitions are filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 seeking quashing of the proceedings. Accused No.1, in Criminal Petition No.201567/2025, contends that his - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7883 CRL.P No. 201617 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 201567 of 2025 role was limited to rendering legal assistance to accused No.2 and that merely because he issued a reply notice on instructions of his client, the offences alleged are not attracted insofar as he is concerned. It is contended that the contents of the reply notice are based on instructions furnished by his client and, therefore, the averments contained therein cannot be personally attributed to him. 5. Accused No.2, in the connected petition, contends that the dispute between the parties is essentially civil in nature arising out of an agreement for sale and that the complainant has misused the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 to give a criminal colour to a purely civil dispute. It is contended that despite the availability of an efficacious civil remedy, the complainant has initiated criminal proceedings only with an intention to intimidate and exert pressure, amounting to arm-twisting. On this ground, accused No.2 seeks quashing of the proceedings contending that no cognizable offence is made out. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7883 CRL.P No. 201617 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 201567 of 2025 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/complainant, by referring to specific contents of the reply notice, vehemently argued that accused No.1, who is acquainted with the complainant and possesses personal details about him, has deliberately launched a personal attack under the guise of a reply notice. It is contended that the impugned remarks are not instructions emanating from accused No.2 but are derived from the personal knowledge of accused No.1 on account of such acquaintance, and therefore, accused No.1 cannot claim immunity merely on the ground that he rendered legal assistance while issuing the reply notice. 7. As regards accused No.2, it is contended that the complainant has breached the terms of the agreement for sale and, therefore, the matter requires a thorough investigation. It is submitted that this is not a fit case for this Court to interdict the proceedings at the nascent stage of investigation. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7883 CRL.P No. 201617 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 201567 of 2025 8. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State has supported the prosecution and contended that the remarks made by accused No.1 in the reply notice, as extracted in the complaint, prima facie disclose the commission of the alleged offences. It is therefore submitted that there is sufficient material warranting investigation and that the proceedings ought not to be quashed. 9. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to advert to the agreement of sale. On a closer examination of the agreement entered into between accused No.2 and respondent No.2/complainant, it is seen that the sale consideration is fixed at Rs.26,76,000/-. The agreement reflects that the complainant claims to have made two prior payments, namely, a sum of Rs.11,000/- on 15.05.2025 and a further sum of Rs.11,00,000/- transferred to the account of accused No.2 on 26.05.2025. Admittedly, on the date of execution of the agreement for - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7883 CRL.P No. 201617 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 201567 of 2025 sale, no further payment was made under the document. While the complainant asserts that accused No.2 deliberately withheld crucial title documents, accused No.2 contends that all requisite documents were furnished along with the reply notice. 10. The core contention of accused No.2 is that the actual sale consideration agreed between the parties was Rs.74,00,000/- and that the consideration reflected in the agreement for sale was only for the limited purpose of enabling the complainant to secure a bank loan and does not represent the true transaction. The crux of the present dispute, therefore, stems from the averments contained in paragraph No.1 of the reply notice issued by accused No.1. This Court, therefore, deems it appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the reply notice, which reads as under: "1. The true facts are that your client is a law graduate. He initially secured a job as Assistant Public Prosecutor and rendered his services in the - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7883 CRL.P No. 201617 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 201567 of 2025 Court of Civil Judge (Jr.Dn.), Jewargi for few years. Thereafter your client is promoted to the cadre of Senior Law Officer and presently is rendering his services as Senior Law officer in the office of IGP at Kalaburagi. It is true to submit that my client was intending to sell her owned as possessed plot bearing No.2 measuring 40x60 ft situated in Sy.No.21/2 of Biddapur Kalaburagi on its prevailing price, which she acquired under registered gift deed dated 27.2.2006 bearing Doc.No.02763/2005-06 and her name is continuously shown in the corporation records in due process of law with PID No.113406 and she has paid the property tax uptil now and her name is also shown in "B Aasti" showing the property No.38-10- 850-379B. The land Sy.No.21/2 of Biddapur Village Tq: Kalaburagi being converted into non-agricultural use by the Deputy Commissioner, Kalaburagi vide order dated 26.7.2000 and the layout plan of the said land being approved by the competent Gram Panchayat Nandikoor in due process of law." 11. On a careful reading of the extracted portion of the reply notice, this Court is required to examine as to whether the registration of crime for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(p) of the Scheduled Castes - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7883 CRL.P No. 201617 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 201567 of 2025 and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, read with Sections 3(5) and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, is legally sustainable. Section 3(1)(p) of the Atrocities Act criminalises the act of instituting false, malicious or vexatious civil, criminal or other legal proceedings against a member of the Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes on the ground of caste. The sine qua non for invoking the said provision is that the accused must have initiated such proceedings with a deliberate and malicious intent, and the action complained of must be demonstrably false, vexatious and motivated by the caste status of the victim. 12. In the case on hand, the factual matrix clearly reveals that the complainant himself entered into an agreement for sale with accused No.2 in respect of immovable property. The entire dispute emanates from alleged non-furnishing of documents, alleged breach of contractual terms and the reply notice issued in response to a legal notice. The complainant is not facing any civil, - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7883 CRL.P No. 201617 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 201567 of 2025 criminal or other legal proceedings instituted by the accused. On the contrary, it is the complainant who has set the criminal law in motion. Therefore, the foundational requirement of Section 3(1)(p), namely institution of false or malicious proceedings against a member of SC/ST, is conspicuously absent. Even if the contents of the reply notice are accepted in their entirety, they do not amount to institution of any legal proceedings, much less proceedings which are false, vexatious or malicious within the meaning of Section 3(1)(p) of the Act. Consequently, prima facie, the said provision is not at all attracted. 13. Insofar as the offence punishable under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which deals with defamation, is concerned, once this Court comes to the conclusion that the provisions of the Atrocities Act are not attracted, the offence of defamation remains a stand- alone offence. Defamation is a non-cognizable offence. The police, therefore, lack jurisdiction to register a crime or undertake investigation on the basis of a police complaint. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7883 CRL.P No. 201617 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 201567 of 2025 The statutory remedy available to an aggrieved person alleging defamation is to institute a private complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate in terms of Section 198(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, corresponding to Section 200 of the Code. Therefore, even assuming that the allegations made in the complaint are taken at their face value, the registration of FIR for the offence punishable under Section 356 of BNS is wholly without jurisdiction and contrary to the statutory mandate. 14. On a closer examination of the written complaint, it is also relevant to note that respondent No.2/complainant is admittedly a Senior Law Officer presently rendering his services in the office of the Inspector General of Police at Kalaburagi. The SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is a special legislation enacted with the avowed object of protecting vulnerable and marginalised members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from social oppression, discrimination and atrocities. Though the complainant may belong to a - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7883 CRL.P No. 201617 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 201567 of 2025 Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, the invocation of the stringent provisions of the Atrocities Act in a purely contractual dispute arising out of an agreement for sale reflects a clear attempt to give a criminal colour to a civil dispute. The material on record does not disclose any act of atrocity, humiliation or victimisation on account of caste. The dispute predominantly revolves around contractual obligations, alleged breach thereof and exchange of legal notices. 15. Merely because accused No.1, in his capacity as a practising advocate, issued a reply notice on behalf of his client, the same by itself cannot constitute an offence either under Section 3(1)(p) of the Atrocities Act or under Section 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. The complainant had efficacious civil remedies available in law, including enforcement of the agreement or seeking appropriate reliefs before the civil court. Instead of availing such remedies, initiation of criminal proceedings under the Atrocities Act appears to be an attempt to - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7883 CRL.P No. 201617 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 201567 of 2025 intimidate, browbeat and exert undue pressure upon accused Nos.1 and 2. 16. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of criminal proceedings against accused No.1 as well as accused No.2 in Crime No.167/2025 is wholly unwarranted. Permitting the investigation to continue in the absence of the essential ingredients of the alleged offences would amount to an abuse of the process of law. Even if the allegations contained in the complaint are accepted in their entirety, no case is made out which would result in a conviction. Therefore, to prevent abuse of process and to secure the ends of justice, both the petitions deserve to be allowed. 17. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, this Court proceeds to pass the following: - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-K:7883 CRL.P No. 201617 of 2025 C/W CRL.P No. 201567 of 2025 ORDER (i) The petitions are allowed; (ii) The proceedings in Crime No.167/2025 registered by Ashok Nagar Police Station, Kalaburagi City, for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(p) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 3(5) and 356 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, pending on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kalaburagi, are hereby quashed insofar as the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 are concerned; (iii) It is, however, made clear that this order shall not preclude respondent No.2/complainant from seeking enforcement of the agreement or availing such other civil remedies as may be available to him in accordance with law. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA/List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2 CT:SI