- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14872 CRL.P No. 1897 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1897 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI. S PARAMESH S/O B.S. SHIVANNA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/OF SRI. BANASHANKARI MEENUGARA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA, AVAREGERE, DOOR NO.244/2B, SRI BANASHANKARI NILAYA, 30TH WARD, AVARAGERE, DAVANAGERE-577003 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. HAREESH BHANDARY T., ADV.) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VIDYANAGARA POLICE STATION, DAVANAGERE, Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14872 CRL.P No. 1897 of 2024 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-01 2. SRI. SRIDHAR S/O MALLESHNAIK, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, THOLAHUNSE, DAVANAGERE TALUK, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT-577002 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP. FOR R1, R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.C.NO.698/2023 REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 323, 324, 504, 506 R/W SEC. 149 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v)(v-a) OF SC/ST ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, DAVANAGERE AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14872 CRL.P No. 1897 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court calling in question the proceedings in C.C.No.698/2023 registered for the offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v)(v-a) of SC/ST Act pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Court, Davanagere and consequently direct the Superintendent of Police, Davanagere to hold investigation against the investigating officer for conducting faulty investigation against the petitioner in Spl.C.C.No.698/2023 pending on the file of Principal District and Sessions Court, Davanagere, in the interest of justice. 2. Heard Sri Hareesh Bhandary.T, learned counsel for the petitioner, and also Sri Anoop Kumar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14872 CRL.P No. 1897 of 2024 3. The petitioner is the accused. Respondent No.2 is the complainant. The petitioner and the complainant are said to have had a squabble with regard to a fishing tank and were before this court as well in several writ petitions. The issue in the lis revolves around a fishing tank, but not with regard to fishing, but assault. On 27.07.2023, it is the allegation that the petitioner goes to the Avaregere tank where the complainant was standing on its tank bund and the petitioner arrives in a car. When the complainant and others were simply said to have been just standing, a squabble began between the two and the petitioner is said to have assaulted the complainant. The complainant then registers a complaint which becomes a crime in Crime No. 167/2023 under Sections, 307, 392, 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v)(v-a) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015. The police conduct investigation and investigation leads to filing of the charge sheet. The filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the petitioner - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14872 CRL.P No. 1897 of 2024 to this court in the subject petition. The charge sheet is taking away several offences that were alleged in the crime, retaining only the following offences i.e., under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 149 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(V)(VA) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is not even assaulted or there was no altercation between the complainant and the petitioner. The allegations are totally false as it revolves around the license of the fishing tank. The learned counsel further submits that there is discrepancy in narrating the time of the incident. In the complaint, it indicates that it is between 09.00 and 10.00 p.m., but when the petitioner tried to demonstrate that he was at his house at that point of time, the charge sheet notices that it was at 11.00 a.m. Therefore, the learned counsel submits on this score at least this Court should obliterate the crime against the petitioner. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14872 CRL.P No. 1897 of 2024 5. The complainant though served remains unrepresented. 6. The learned HCGP would refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner has indulged in assaulting the complainant. There are wound certificates to that effect. In that light, the police have filed a charge sheet only for offence under Sections 324, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. He would submit that trial must be permitted to be continued in the facts and circumstances of the case. Insofar as the Atrocities Act is concerned, the learned High Court Government Pleader submits that the hurling of abuses has been in broad daylight. Therefore, the said offence also must be tried. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel, and have perused the material on record. 8. The aforenarrated facts, dates, link in the chain of events are all a matter of record. The alleged incident - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14872 CRL.P No. 1897 of 2024 takes place on 27.07.2023 between 09.00 a.m. to 10.00 a.m. or at 11.00 a.m. is a matter of dispute. The incident results in alleged assault of the petitioner upon the complainant. The complaint is then registered on the said assault on the same day in the afternoon at 02.30 p.m. The complaint results in registration of a crime in Crime No.167/2023. In the light of the complaint regarding the entire registration of the crime, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. ಇವೆ ೕ ಇನೆಕ, ಾನಗರ ೕ ಾೆ, ಾವಣೆೆ. ಇಂದ ೕ ೕಧ  ಮ"ೆ#ೕ$ %ಾಯ', ವಯಸು: 26 ವಷ+. ,ಾ-: ಲಂ/ಾ0 ಜ%ಾಂಗ ಕೂ 3ೆಲಸ 4ಾಸ: 5ೋಳಹುಣ8ೆ ಾಮ, 5ೋಳಹುಣ8ೆ ಾವಣೆೆ 5ಾಲೂ#ಕು ಮತು: ;"ೆ#. , 9448422780, 9632570060 ಷಯ: ನಮ= >ೕ"ೆ ?ಾರಾಂ-ಕ ಹ"ೆ#?ಾ@, ಅ4ಾಚ ಶಬEಗFಂದ /ೈಯು, - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14872 CRL.P No. 1897 of 2024
ಾಂದೆ ಾ ೊ ೆ ೆದೆ ಾರುವದರ ರುದ ದೂರು, ೕಲಂಡ ಷಯೆ ಸಂಬಂ!"ದಂ#ೆ ಾನು ೕ ಾ%"ದ &ಾಸದ'( )ಾಯಂ *ಾ"+ಾ,ರು#ೆ-ೆ. ಾನು ಮೂಲತಃ ಪ2ಷ3
ಾ ಲಂಾ% ಜಾಂಗೆ 6ೇದವಾ,ರು#ೆ-ೕೆ. ಾನು ಕೂ' ೆಲಸವನು8 ಾ ೊಂಡು 9ೕವನ 6ಾ,ಸು-:ೆ;ೕೆ. <ಾಂಕ:27-07-2023 ರಂದು ಸು ಾರು 9 ಂದ 10 ಗಂ=ೆ ಸಮಯದ'( ಾನು ಮತು- ನಮ> ಲಂಾ% ಸಮು:ಾಯದ ?.ಎಂ ಸಂ<ೕಪ' AB ಮೂCಾಯ ವಯಸುD ಸು ಾರು 28 ವಷC ಮತು- ಉೕF ಾಯ AB Gೇಖರಾಯ ವಯಸುD ಸು ಾರು 27 ವಷC ಆದ ಾವ ಮೂರು ಜನರು ೆಲಸದ Jತ- ನಮ> #ೋಳಹುಣ6ೆ ಹ-ರ ಇರುವ ಅವರPೆQೆ ೆQೆಯ ಹ-ರ ೋ, ೆQೆಯ ಏ ೕ ೆ ಂತುೊಂ :ೆ;ೕವ. ಆ ಸಮಯದ'( ಅವರPೆQೆ PಾSಮದ ಾಾ ಅಥ*ಾ ೆಸ-ರು ಜಾಂಗೆ 6ೇದವಾದ ಎU. ಪರೕF ಎಂಬುವವರು ೆ.ಎ17 ಎB 6828 ಎಂಬ *ಾಹನದ'( ನಮ> ಬV ಬಂದು ಏೆ ನಮ> ೆQೆಯ ಏಯ ೕ ೆ ಂ<; ಎಂದು ೇVದರು. ಆಗ ಎಲ( ೆVPೆW ೇQೆ ೆಲಸತು-. ಅದಾ, ೆQೆಯ ಏ ೕ ೆ ಂ:ೆ;ೕ*ೆ ಎಂದು 6ೌಜನY<ಂದ ೇV:ೆವ ಆಗ ತZಣ ಪರೕಶರವರು ೕವ +ಾವ ಏ ೕ ೆ ಂ:ೆ;ೕವ ಎಂದು 6ೌಜನY<ಂದ ೇV:ೆವ ಆಗ ತZಣ ಪರೕಶರವರು ೕವ +ಾವ
ಾಯವರು ಎಂದು ೇVದರು ಅದೆ ಾವ ಪ2ಷ3 ಲಂಾ% ಜಾಂಗದವರು ಎಂದು ೇಳ\-ದ;ಂಗ ೇ ಲಂಾ% ಜಾಂಗದ ಸೂ&ೆ 'ಮಕ&ೇ, ಮ> #ಾ]ಾಡ, Jಂ SPೆ ಹು?3ದ ಸೂ&ೆಮಕಳ ೕವ ಎಲ(ರೂ ನಮ> ೆQೆಯ'( Jೕನು ^ ಯಲು ಬಂ<<;ೕ ಎಂದು ಪರೕಶ ಮತು- ಈತನ
ೊ#ೆPೆ ಇತQೆ ಾಲು ಜನರು 6ೇ ನನPೆ ರಬ`a =ೈa ೆc3 ಂದ ಮತು- ೋ'ಂದ, ರಬ`a ೆc3 ನು8 ಪರೕಶರವರು ^ ದುೊಂಡು ೆನ8 ^ಂ:ೆ ತನ8'(ರುವ ಎ ಾ( ಶ-ಯನು8 ಉಪdೕ," ರಭಸ*ಾ, ಸು ಾರು ಾ ಬಲ*ಾ, ೊfೆ<ರು#ಾ-ೆ. ಮತು- ೈಾಲುಗVಂದ ನನ8 ೊ=ೆ3Pೆ, ಾಲುಗVPೆ, ಮುಖೆ ಹ ೆ( ಾ ರು#ಾ-ೆ ಾಗೂ ತನ8 gಣಾ'ಂದ ನನ8 ಮಮCಂಗೆ ೊfೆ<ರು#ಾ-ೆ. ಾಗೂ ನನ8
ೊ#ೆPೆ ಬಂದ ಸಂ<ೕh ಇವPೆ ಪರೕಶ ಇವರು ರಬ`a ೆc3 ಮತು- ೋ'ಂದ ನನPೆ ಹ ೆ( ಾ ದ ೕಯ'( ಹ ೆ( ಾ ರು#ಾ-ೆ. ಾಗೂ ಇೊ8ಬ` ಉೕF ಾಯ, ಈತಗೂ ಸಹ ಪರೕಶ ಇವರು ರಬ`a ೆc3 ಮತು- ೋ'ಂದ ನನPೆ ಹ ೆ( ಾ ದ ೕಯ'( ಹ ೆ( ಾ ರು#ಾ-ೆ. ಪರೕF ಇವರ
ೊ#ೆPೆ ಬಂ<ರುವ ಇತರ ಾಲು ಜನQಾದ ೖೕ ೆ ಜCB, ಮುಖೆ ಾU ಾೊಂಡು ನಮPೆ ಗುರುತು ^ ಯಲು 6ಾಧY*ಾಗದ ೕಯ'( ಬಂದು ಪರೕಶರವರ
ೊ#ೆಗೂ ಎಲ(ರೂ - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14872 CRL.P No. 1897 of 2024 6ೇ ನಮ>ಗVPೆ ಮನಬಂದಂ#ೆ ಹ ೆ( ಾ ರು#ಾ-Qೆ. ಇವರ'( ಪರೕಶಪjನವರು ಸಂ<ೕh ಬV ಇರುವ gೈc ಅಂ:ಾಜು ೆ ೆ : ರೂ 12999/- ಾಗೂ ನಗದು ಹಣ 22,500/- ಗಳನು8 ೆಲೆ ೆಡ ಕು-Pೆ ೕ ೆ PÁ°lÄÖ PÀ¹zÀÄPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛ£É, EªÀgÉ®ègÀÆ ªÀÄ£À§AzÀAvÉ zÉÊ»PÀªÁV ºÀ¯Éè ªÀiÁrzÀÝ®èzÉ, ಇೊ8ಂದು ಈ ನನ8 ೆQೆಯ ಏ ೕ ೆ ಬಂದQೆ ಮ>ನು8 9ೕವಸ^ತ Aಡುವ<ಲ(*ೆಂದು ೊ ೆ ೆದೆ ಸಹ ಾರು#ಾ-Qೆ. ಅಲ(:ೆ ನಮ> ಲಂಾ% ಜಾಂಗದ
ಾಯನು8 ^ ದು ಮನಬಂದಂ#ೆ ೈಯುದು ಅಲ(:ೆ --ನಮ>ಗಳ ೖೕ ೆ ಇರುವ ಬ=ೆ3ಗಳನು8 ಸಹ ಹದುಾರು#ಾ-Qೆ. ನಮ>ಗಳನು8 ೆದ" ೆದ" ಅ ೆ( ಮೂ ೆಯ'(ದ; ೇ'ಯ'(ರುವ ಒಂದು ಹ&ೆ Jೕನ ಬ ೆಯನು8 ನಮ>ಗಳ ೕ ೆ ೊQೆ" ಒ#ಾ-ಯಪlವCಕ*ಾ, ಕQೆಯ ಒಳಗfೆ ದA`ರು#ಾ-Qೆ. ಪರೕಶಪj ಇವPೆ ತಮPೆ ೇಾದ ೕಯ'(  dೕವನು8 #ಾೇ ಸmತಃ ಸೃo3 ಾ ೊಂ ರು#ಾ-ೆ. ಾವಗಳ\ ನಮ> ೕ ೆ ಾQಾpಾಂಕ ಹ ೆ( ನfೆ<ದ;ಂದ qಗ=ೇ 9 ಾ( ಆಸj#ೆS ೋ, q#ೆD ಪfೆ<ೊಂಡು ಈ ದೂರನು8 ಸ'(ಸು-:ೆ;ೕ*ೆ. ಆದ;ಂದ ದ+ಾಳ\ಗ&ಾದ #ಾವಗಳ\ ನಮ>ಗಳ ಾQಾpಾಂಕ ಹ ೆ( ಾ , ಅ*ಾಚY ಶಬ;ಗVಂದ ೈAiÀÄÄÝ
ಾಂದೆ ಾ ೊ ೆ ೆದೆ ಾದವQಾದ ೕಲಂಡವರ ರುದ ಾನೂನು ೕಯ'( ಕSಮ ೈPೊಂಡು ನಮPೆ ಾYಯ :ೊರ"ೊಡೇೆಂದು ತಮ>'( ೋರು#ೆ-ೕೆ. DOB:27-07-2023. ಸsಳ::ಾವಣPೆQೆ. 9. The police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet not for all those glorified offences that were projected at the time of registration of the crime, but for offence punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 and the Atrocities Act. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14872 CRL.P No. 1897 of 2024 10. The summary of the charge sheet has obtaining in column No.17 reads as follows: 17. ೇ"ನ ಸಂtಪ- 6ಾQಾಂಶ ಾಲಂ ನಂ 17:- :ಾವಣPೆQೆ :ಾYನಗರ u'ೕU vಾpೆ ಗುೆ8 ನಂ: 167/2023 ಕಲಂ: 323, 324, 504, 506 Qೆ/ 149 ಐx" ಮತು- ಕಲಂ: 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) 3(2)(v) 3(2)(v - a) SC/ST PA Act-1989 ರ ಅ ಯ'( ಸ'("ದ ಆQೋಪ ಪ?3. :ೋzಾQೋಪಣ ಪತSದ ಾಲಂ ನಂ: 12 ಕಂಡ 1 ಂದ 5 ೇ ಆQೋxತರು ೆಸ-ರ ಜಾಂಗೆ 6ೇದು;, ಪSಕರಣದ x+ಾC< :ೋzಾQೋಪಣ ಪತSದ ಾಲಂ ನಂ: 12 ರ'( ಕಂಡ 1 ಂದ 5 ೇ ಆQೋxತರು ೆಸ-ರ ಜಾಂಗೆ 6ೇದು;, ಪSಕರಣದ x+ಾC< ಾಗೂ 6ಾt 4 ಮತು- 6ಾt 5 ರವರು ಲಂಾ% (ಪ2ಷ3
ಾ) ಜಾಂಗೆ 6ೇದವQಾ,ರು#ಾ-Qೆ. :ೋzಾQೋಪಣ ಪತSದ ಾಲಂ ನಂ: 12 ರ'( ಕಂಡ 1 ಂದ 5 ೇ ಆQೋxತರು <ಾಂಕ:27/07/2023 ರಂದು ೆಳPೆW 11:00 ಗಂ=ೆ ಸು ಾPೆ #ೋಳಹುಣ6ೆ ಹ-ರ ಇರುವ ಅವರPೆQೆ ೆQೆ ಬV ೋ, ೆQೆಯ'( Jೕನು ^ ಯು-ದ; 6ಾt-1, 6ಾt-4 ಮತು- 6ಾt-5 ರವPೆ ನಮ> ೆQೆಯ'( +ಾೆ Jೕನು ^ ಯು-<;ೕ ೕವ +ಾವ
ಾಯವರು ಎಂದು ೇV:ಾಗ 6ಾt-1, 6ಾt-4 ಮತು-. 6ಾt-5 ರವರು ಾವ ಪ2ಷ3
ಾ ಲಂಾ% ಜಾಂಗದವರು ಎಂದು ೇಳ\-ದ;ಂ#ೆ 1 ಂದ 5 ೇ ಆQೋxತರು ೇ ಲಂಾ% ಜಾಂಗದ ಸೂ&ೆ ಮಕ&ೇ, ಮ> #ಾ]ಾಡ, Jಂ SPೆ ಹು?3ದ ಸೂ&ೆಮಕಳ ೕವ ಎಲ(ರೂ ನಮ> ೆQೆಯ'( ೇPೆ Jೕನು ^ ಯಲು ಬಂ<<;ೕ ಎಂದು 6ಾವCಜಕ ಸsಳದ'( 6ಾವCಜಕPೆ ೇಳ\ವಂ#ೆ
ಾಂದೆ ಾ ನಂತರ 1 ೇ ಆQೋxತನು 6ಾt-1 ರವPೆ ಜುಳ\]ಂದ ೆನ8 ^ಂ:ೆ ೊfೆದು ೈಾಲುಗVಂದ ೊ=ೆ3, ಾಲುಗVPೆ ೊfೆದು 6ಾ ಾನY ಸmರೂಪದ Pಾಯಪ "ದು;, 6ಾt-4 ಮತು- 6ಾt-5 ರವPೆ 1 ೇ ಆQೋxತನು ಜುಳ\]ಂದ ೆನು8, ೈ, ಾಲು, ೖಗVPೆ ೊfೆದು 6ಾ ಾನY ಸmರೂಪದ Pಾಯಪ "ದು;, 2 ಂದ 5 ೇ - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14872 CRL.P No. 1897 of 2024 ಆQೋxತರು ಸಹ ಜುಳ\ ಾಗೂ ೈಾಲುಗVಂದ 6ಾt-1, 6ಾt-4 ಮತು- 6ಾt-5 ರವPೆ ಹ ೆ( ಾ ಆQೋxತQೆಲ(ರೂ ಸಾ ಇೊ8ಂದು 6ಾ ೆQೆಯ ಹ-ರ ಬಂದQೆ ಮ>ನು8 9ೕವಸ^ತ Aಡುವ<ಲ(*ೆಂದು ೊ ೆ ೆದೆ ಾ ಕಲಂ: 323, 324, 504, 506 Qೆ/ 149 ಐx" ಮತು- ಕಲಂ: 3(1) (r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(v-a) SC/ST PA Act-1989 ಸಂಗS^"ದ :ಾಖ ಾಗVಂದ ಾಗೂ 6ಾt:ಾರರ ೇVೆಗVಂದ ದೃಡಪ?3ರುವದಂದ 1 ಂದ 5 ೇ ಆQೋxತರ ರುದ ಈ :ೋzಾQೋಪpೆ ಪ?3ಯನು8 ಘನ ಾY+ಾಲಯೆ ಸ'("ರುತ-:ೆ. ?ಪj%: -ಸದ ೇ"ನ'( x+ಾC<, 6ಾt:ಾರರು ಮತು- ಆQೋxತರ gೈc ನಂಬa ಗಳ " ಆa ಾಗೂ "ಎಎ| ಾ^ ಬPೆW ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ3 6ೇ*ಾ:ಾರಂದ ~ಾರೕಯ 6ಾZ•ತm ಅ!ಯಮ ಕಲಂ: 65B ಪS ಾಣ ಪತSವನು8 ಒದ,"ೊಡಲು ೋ ಮನ ಸ'("ೊಂ ದು; ಅವಂದ ಪS ಾಣ ಪತSವನು8 ಪfೆದುೊಂಡು ಘನ ಾY+ಾಲಯೆ ೆಚು€ವ+ಾ, ಕಲಂ 173(8) ೕ#ಾY *ೇ!"ೊಳ• ಾಗುವದು. 11. While laying down the said charge against the petitioner, the wound certificate is looked into. The injuries sustained in the wound certificate are as follows: 1. Tenderness over interscapular region 2. Abrasion 0.5 x 0.5 cm over left 1st knuckle with tenderness 3. Tenderness over ® upper 1/3rd leg 12. In the light of the charge being an assault and the offence being of Section 324 of the IPC and the wound certificates corroborating with the allegations, it is for the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14872 CRL.P No. 1897 of 2024 petitioner to come out clean in a full blown trial in so far as the offences under Sections 324, 323, 504 and 506 of the IPC. 13. In so far as the Atrocities Act is concerned, there is not even an iota of ingredient as is necessary for offence under Sections 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s). It is not indicative of the fact whether the offence, the abuses have been hurled in the public place or a place of public view. In that light, if further trial is permitted to continue qua the offences under the Atrocities Act, it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of HITESH VERMA V. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND1, at paragraph Nos.10 to 17 as follows: 10. The Act was enacted to improve the social economic conditions of the vulnerable sections of the society as they have been subjected to various offences such as indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have been deprived of life and property as well. The object of 1 (2020) 10 SCC 710 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14872 CRL.P No. 1897 of 2024 the Act is thus to punish the violators who inflict indignities, humiliations and harassment and commit the offence as defined under Section 3 of the Act. The Act is thus intended to punish the acts of the upper caste against the vulnerable section of the society for the reason that they belong to a particular community. 11. It may be stated that the charge-sheet filed is for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The said section stands substituted by Act No. 1 of 2016 w.e.f. 26.1.2016. The substituted corresponding provision is Section 3(1)(r) which reads as under: “3(1)(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;” 12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as “1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and 2) in any place within public view”. 13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14872 CRL.P No. 1897 of 2024 victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste. 14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult or intimidation in “any place within public view”. What is to be regarded as “place in public view” had come up for consideration before this Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh & Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel & Ors.5. The Court had drawn distinction between the expression “public place” and “in any place within public view”. It was held that if an offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen 5 (2008) 8 SCC 435 by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14872 CRL.P No. 1897 of 2024 wall, then the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view. The Court held as under: “28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling him a “chamar”) when he stood near the car which was parked at the gate of the premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place within public view, since the gate of a house is certainly a place within public view. It could have been a different matter had the alleged offence been committed inside a building, and also was not in the public view. However, if the offence is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would certainly be a place within the public view. Also, even if the remark is made inside a building, but some members of the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not confuse the expression “place within public view” with the expression “public place”. A place can be a private place but yet within the public view. On the other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a place - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14872 CRL.P No. 1897 of 2024 which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies.” 15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered “in any place within public view” is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh, it cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet. 16. There is a dispute about the possession of the land which is the subject matter of civil dispute between the parties as per respondent No.2 herself. Due to dispute, appellant and others were not permitting respondent No.2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since the matter is regarding possession of property pending before the Civil Court, any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14872 CRL.P No. 1897 of 2024 intimated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. 17. In another judgment reported as Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh6, this Court held that in a case for applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the fact that the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste would not be enough to inflict enhanced punishment. This Court held that there was nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant only because the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste. The Court held as under: 6 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1104 “15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be such so as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The offence must have been committed against the person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the fact that the deceased was belonging to “Khangar”-Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant-accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable.” - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14872 CRL.P No. 1897 of 2024 14. In that light, the offences under the Atrocities Act stand obliterated. The petition thus succeeds in part. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER i. The petition is allowed in part. ii. The offences in so far as atrocities is concerned stands quashed. The other offences stand sustained. iii. It is for the petitioner to face trial and come out clean thereon. iv. It is needless to observe that the concerned court at the appropriate time would accept the documents that are produced by the petitioner in his defence. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE SSB