- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1059 WP No. 8382 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA WRIT PETITION NO. 8382 OF 2021 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: SRI. SAMPATH RAJ S/O. LATE RAJEE, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.5, MURUGESH MUDALIAR ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE-560005 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MAHESH S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ANTI TERRORIST CELL (EARLIER DEVERAJEEVAHALLI P S) REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BANGALORE - 560 001 2. SRI. R. AKHANDA SRINIVASA MURTHY S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, PULIKESHI NAGAR CONSTITUENCY, NO.32, KAVAL BYRASANDRA, R T NAGAR POST, BENGALURU CITY-560032 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MURTHY .D. NAIK, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHENDRA .G., ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF THE Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1059 WP No. 8382 of 2021 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1973 FOR PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN WHO IS ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.57 FOR OFFENCES UNDER U/S 143, 144, 145, 435, 436, 395, 447, 120(B) R/W 149 OF IPC, U/S 2 OF KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION AND LOSS OF PROPERTY ACT 1981 AND U/S 3(2), (III), (IV), (V) (VA) SC/ST POA ACT, 1989 AND 25(1B)(B) OF INDIA ARMS ACT 1959 BEFORE LXX ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-71) IN SPL CC 744/2020 VIDE ANNX-H AS THE CONTINUATION PROCEEDINGS IS CLEAR ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW. THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA ORAL ORDER Petitioner being accused No.57 in CC No.744/2020 on the file of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Court (Special Court), Bengaluru (CCH 71) registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 145, 435, 436, 395, 427, 447 and 120(B) R/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and under Section 2 of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 (for short 'the KPDLP Act') and under Section 3 (2),(iii),(iv),(v)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1059 WP No. 8382 of 2021 Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST Act') and Section 25 (1B) (b) of Indian Arms Act 1959 is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. 2. Heard Sri. Mahesh S, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri. Rangaswamy R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. Murthy D Naik, learned Senior Advocate for Sri. Mahendra G., learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though petitioner – accused No.57 has approached this Court seeking quashing of entire criminal proceedings initiated against him for the above said offences, the petitioner intends to restrict his claim only in respect of provisions under the SC/ST Act and not with regard to the penal provisions invoked under IPC, KPDLP Act and the Arms Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe and under such circumstances, the provisions of the SC/ST Act could not have been invoked against the petitioner. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1059 WP No. 8382 of 2021 4. He draws the attention of the Court to the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer to contend that investigating office has filed the charge sheet against the present petitioner only for the offence under the provisions of IPC and KPDLT Act, 1981 and deliberately not invoked provisions of the SC/ST Act. Therefore, prays for quashing criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the SC/ST Act. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 opposing the petition submitted that a detailed charge sheet is submitted before the Trial Court. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences for all the offences including the offence under the provision of SC/ST Act. The matter was fixed for hearing before charge. The petitioner has never raised any objections before the Trial Court and thereafter, the charge came to be framed for all the offences, including the offence punishable under the provision of SC/ST Act. Either at the time of taking cognizance of the offences or at the time of framing charge, the petitioner has never raised this question. Now the charge is already framed, witnesses are being examined before - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1059 WP No. 8382 of 2021 the Trial Court. Under such circumstances, petitioner is not entitled for any relief as claimed. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also submits that he disputes the contention that the petitioner belongs to scheduled Tribe. But in fact, he professes Christianity and therefore, he is not entitled for the relief. 7. In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is: "Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?" My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the following: REASONS 8. It is the contention of the petitioner that he belongs to Scheduled Tribe. No material have been produced before this Court in support of his contention. The only ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Investigating Officer has not invoked the provisions of SC/ST Act against the petitioner, while filing the final report. But admittedly, the Trial - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1059 WP No. 8382 of 2021 Court taking into consideration the materials on record, took cognizance of the offence. While taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner, the Trial Court also has taken into consideration the provisions of the SC/ST Act. 9. The petitioner has appeared before the Trial Court. He has never raised any objection before framing the charge to contend that since he belongs to Schedule Tribe, he is not bound to answer the charge for the offence under the provision of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. There is absolutely no reason for the petitioner for not raising such ground before the Trial Court, at least during hearing before the charge. Under such circumstances, petitioner now cannot turn around and contend that there is non-application of mind by the Trial Court while framing the charge. 10. Once the charge is framed by the Trial Court, the petitioner has to face the Trial and seek his acquittal. When admittedly, now the matter is pending for trial and many of the witness are already examined, it is for the prosecution to prove the charges against the petitioner and the petitioner can defend his claim before the Trial Court. However, he is not entitled for - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:1059 WP No. 8382 of 2021 quashing of criminal proceedings for any of the provisions of the enactment. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed. SD/- (M G UMA) JUDGE BH CT:VS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10