- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33746 CRL.P No. 7994 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7994 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SRI PUCHUMADA C PRATAP @ POOVAIAH S/O P B CHINNAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT KONANAKATTE SULUGODU, VIRAJPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT - 571 218. …PETITIONER (BY SRI KARTHIK NATESH, ADVOCATE FOR SMT. LEELA P. DEVADIGA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY PONNAMPET POLICE STATION REP. BY THE SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. SRI THAMMA @ GANESH S/O BELLI AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT HYSUDLURU VILLAGE HUDIKERI POST VIRAJPETE TALUK - 571 218. …RESPONDENTS [BY SMT. SOWMYA R., HCGP FOR R1; SRI H. MOHAN KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (AB)] Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33746 CRL.P No. 7994 of 2019 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 06.10.2019 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A AND THE FIR IN CR.NO.115/2019 DATED 06.10.2018 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-B BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE COURT, KODAGU, MADIKERI REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, PONNAMPET P.S., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging registration of FIR in Crime no.115/2019, Ponnampet Police Station, presently stated to be pending before II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri, this petition is filed. 2. Sri Karthik Natesh, counsel appearing for Leela P Devadiga, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner was sole accused in complaint filed by respondent no.2 as per Annexure-A. In complaint, it was alleged that accused had on 04.10.2019 abused complainant by reference to his caste as belonging to Scheduled Caste etc., It was submitted that complainant in fact belonged to 'Achari' caste - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33746 CRL.P No. 7994 of 2019 which was notified under Other Backward Classes and therefore there was no satisfaction of requirement for invocation of offences under provisions of The Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC and ST Act), and therefore sought for quashing. 3. Learned HCGP on other hand opposed petition. It was submitted that complaint was registered for offences punishable under Sections 323, 355 and 506 of IPC. There were specific allegations of assault by punching on left side of mouth and kicking complainant on his stomach, pulling complainant into their car and thereafter abusing him in foul language and releasing him only after intervention by Manju and Karku. These would constitute necessary ingredients for offences punishable under Sections 323, 355 and 506 of IPC. Insofar as challenge on ground that complainant did not belong to Scheduled Caste, it was submitted there was specific assertion in complaint that accused had abused complainant by referring to his caste as 'Yerava'. Mere denial of same would be a defence and could not be examined at this stage. On said grounds, sought for dismissal. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33746 CRL.P No. 7994 of 2019 4. Heard learned counsel and perused material on record. 5. This petition is by accused seeking for quashing of FIR for offences punishable under Sections 323, 355, 506 of IPC read with Section 3(i)(r) and (s) of SC and ST Act. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy reported in (2004) 6 SCC 522 has held at stage of challenge of FIR, scope of examination by Court under Section 482 of CrPC, would be limited to ascertaining whether allegations in complaint when taken on face value disclose commission of offence. As rightly submitted by learned HCGP, there is specific assertion about abuse of complainant by reference to caste. There is also specific allegation of use of physical force by accused punching complainant on left side of his mouth, kicking him, pulling him into their car as well as threatening to kill him. Same would be prima facie ingredients for offences under Sections 323, 355 and 506 of IPC, as well as under provisions of SC and ST Act. Contention that complainant belongs to Other Backward Caste of 'Achari' would be a defence and cannot be examined at this stage. Reserving liberty to urge contentions at - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:33746 CRL.P No. 7994 of 2019 appropriate stage, petition is dismissed as being devoid of merits. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 28