- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3093 CRL.P No. 12321 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12321 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O LATE C.V. MUTTU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/AT TROOF LINE, R.C.C CHURCH ROAD, RAMANAGARA TOWN, RAMANAGARA–562 159. 2. SMT. PANKAJA W/O RAJENDRA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT 6TH CROSS, R.K. EXTENSION, NEAR SHETTIHALI TANK, NEAR POSTAL LAYOUT, CHANNAPATTANA TOWN, RAMANAGAR-562 160. 3. SRI. K. SANTHOSH S/O LATE KRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT 6TH CROSS, RAJAKEMPEGOWDA BADAVANE, CHANNAPATTANA TOWN, RAMANAGARA-562 160. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. K.B.K. SWAMY, ADVOCATE) Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3093 CRL.P No. 12321 of 2023 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VINOBHANAGARA POLICE STATION, SHIVAMOGGA. REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU–560 001. 2. SMT. SRINIDHI R. W/O SUPRITH, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT 5TH CROSS, AUTO COLONY, SOMINAKOPPA, SHIVAMOGGA TOWN PIN-577 216. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT SHIVAMOGGA IN SPL.C.NO.209/2023 (CRIME NO.62/2023) REGISTERED BY THE VINOBANAGARA P.S., SHIVAMOGGA FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 498(a), 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC, SECTION 3 AND 4 OF D.P. ACT AND SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDED ACT, 2015, AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER NO.1 TO 3 (ACCUSED NO.2 TO 4 RESPECTIVELY). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3093 CRL.P No. 12321 of 2023 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioners/accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 in Special Case No.209/2023 are at the doors of this Court calling in question the entire proceedings. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri. K.B.K. Swamy appearing for the petitioners and the learned HCGP Sri. Vinay Mahadevaiah appearing for the respondent No.1. The second respondent/complainant though served on 29.02.2024 has remained unrepresented even today. Therefore, the petitioner and the learned HCGP appearing for the state are heard in the matter. 3. Facts in brief germane are as follows: 3.1. Accused No.1 and the complainant get married. The marriage takes place on 31.08.2020. The relationship between accused No.1 and the complainant is said to have floundered. On the floundering of the relationship several proceedings are instituted against each other. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3093 CRL.P No. 12321 of 2023 impugned proceedings come about on a complaint being registered by second respondent - wife on 16.06.2023. The said complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.62/2023 for the offences punishable under Section 498A, 324, 504, 506 r/w 34 of the IPC; Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v) of the SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (‘Atrocities Act’ for short). 3.2. The police after investigation have file a charge sheet against these petitioners for the afore-quoted offences. Filing of the charge sheet has driven these petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the allegation of the provisions of the Atrocities Act would not get attracted qua the first petitioner, as the first petitioner also belongs to the Scheduled Caste. Insofar as the second and third petitioners are concerned, the allegation of hurling of abuses has taken place one year prior to the registration - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3093 CRL.P No. 12321 of 2023 of the complaint. Therefore, the said allegation also would not hold any water in the light of several judgments of the Apex Court. Insofar as the offence under Section 498A is concerned, the petitioners being the maternal aunt and uncle of the complainant cannot be dragged into the web of crime for offences punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the proceedings may be quashed against these petitioners as the husband/accused No.1 is facing trial. 5. Per contra, the learned HCGP appearing for the respondent No.1 - state would seek to submit that the allegations are found against these petitioners insofar as the offences under Section 498A of the IPC or the Atrocities Act are concerned. In that light, the charge sheet having been filed it is for the petitioners to come out clean in a full blown trial. On this score, the learned HCGP would just seek dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3093 CRL.P No. 12321 of 2023 respective parties and have perused the material available on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are a matter of record. The relationship between the petitioners and the complainant is explained herein above. The wife registers a complaint against the husband and several members of the family on 16.06.2023. Since the entire issue has now triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows: “ರವೆ, ೕ ಇೆಕ ರವೆ, ೋಬನಗರ ೕ ಾೆ, ೕ ೌ, ವ ಗ!. ಇಂದ, %ೕಮ' %ೕ() ಆ +ೋಂ ಸು.%/, 25 ವಷ3, 4ೋ 5ಾ', 6ೆಂಗಳ8ರು ಐ : ಎ .ಂ<ೆ= ಕಂಪ(ಯ@ AಾBCೇ Dೆವಲಪ, Cಾಸ 5ೇ +ಾ%, ಆ<ೋ +ಾFೋ(, AೋGನ+ೊಪH, ವ ಗ!. ನಂ: 9972438479 OಾನPQೆ, ಷಯ :ನನR ಗಂಡ ಸು.%ೕ/, ಅUೆV ಶಕಲ, XಕYಮZ ಪಂಕಜ ಮತುV Oಾವ ಸಂUೋ] ಇವಂದ ಆಗು'Vರುವ ವರದ^ೆ, 5ಾ' (ಂದೆ, _ೈaಕ - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3093 CRL.P No. 12321 of 2023 bಾಗೂ Oಾನcಕ ರುಕುಳ (ೕdದವರ eೕFೆ +ಾನೂನು ಕ%ಮ +ೈೊಳfgವ ಕುತು. **** ಈ ಮೂಲಕ ತಮZ@ +ೇj+ೊಳfgವk_ೇೆಂದQೆ ನನR Cಾಹವk Qಾಮನಗರದ@ರುವ ನನR Uಾmಯ XಕYಪHನ ಮಗ %ೕ ಸು.%ೕ/ ಅವQೊಂnೆ nಾಂಕ: 31-08-2020 ರಂದು ೇರCೇದುr ಮದುCೆಯ ಸಮಯದ@ 100 ಾ%ಂ ಬಂಾರ ರೂ.2,50,000/- ನಗದು ವರದ^ೆtಾu bಾಗೂ ಮದುCೆ ಖX3ಾu ಒಂದು 1,50,000 Aಾರ ರೂxಾmಗಳನುR (ೕd ಮದುCೆ Oಾd +ೊyರುUಾVQೆ. ನನR Cಾಹದ ಸಂದಭ3ದ@ nಾಂಕ: 26/08/2017 ರಂದು ವ ಗ! ನಗರದ ಹನುಮಂತಪH ಬDಾವೆ 03 ೇ 'ರುನ@ರುವ 6ಾdೆ ಮೆಯ@ (|Uಾಥ3 ನDೆnರುUೆV. ಆ ಸಮಯದ@ 10 ಾ%ಂ ತೂಕದ ಒಂದು ಬಂಾರದ ಉಂಗುರ bಾಗೂ ಬ<ೆಾu ರೂ.25,000 ಗಳನುR (ೕdರುUಾVQೆ. ನನR (|Uಾಥದ ಸಮಯದ@ ಾನು :.ಇ. _ಾP•3(tಾuದುr, ನನR ಓದು ಮುuದ ಕೂಡFೆ 'ೕOಾ3ನCಾuದrಂUೆ 31-08-2020 ರಂದು Qಾಮನಗರದ Qಾಮಮಂnರ ಎಂಬ ಕFಾPಣ ಮಂಟಪದ@ ಮದುCೆtಾuರುUೆV. ಮದುCೆ ಆದ ನಂತರ 3-4 'ಂಗಳf Oಾತ% ೆಾRu ೋd+ೊಂdದುr, ಆ ನಂತರದ@ ನನR ಗಂಡ ಕುdದು ತೂQಾd+ೊಂಡು ಪ%' (ತP Qಾ'% 12 ಗಂ<ೆಯ ನಂತರ ಮೆೆ ಬರುವkದು, ಾನು ƒಾಸu ಕಂಪ(ಯ@ ೌಕmಂದ ದುdಯು'Vದr ಸಂಪ„ಣ3 ಹಣವನುR (ೕಡು ಎಂದು .ೕdಸು'Vದrರು. ನನR@ದr ನನR ಎFಾ@ ಓಡCೆಗಳನುR Uೆೆದು+ೊಂಡು bೋu +ೆಲವನುR OಾQಾಟOಾd +ೆಲವನುR ಅವQೊಂnೆ ಅೈ'ಕ ಸಂಬಂಧ bೊಂnದ bೆಣು†ಮಕYjೆ (ೕdರುವ ಬೆ! 'jದು ಬಂnದುr ಈ ಬೆ! ಪ%RಸFಾu ಾನು ಇರುವk_ೇ aೕೆ ಇರುವk_ಾದQೆ ನನR 5ೊUೆ ಇರು ಇಲ@nದr@ (ನR _ಾ (ೕನು ೋd+ೊ ಎಂದು bೇjದುr ಈ ಾರವನುR ಾನು ನನR ೕಷಕೆ 'jc_ಾಗ ಅವರುಗಳf Qಾಮನಗರ+ೆY ಬಂದು ಸಂಬಂ)ಕರನುR ಕೂc ನನR ಗಂಡ(ೆ ಬುnrCಾದ bೇjರುUಾVQೆ ಆ ಸಮಯದ@ ನನR ತಂ_ೆ Uಾmಯ ಮುಂ_ೆ ತxಾHmತು ಇನುR ಮುಂ_ೆ ಸtಾuರುವk_ಾu ಪ%Oಾಣ Oಾdದುr ನಂತರ +ೆಲCೇ nನಗಳ@ Qಾ'% ನನR ಗಂಡನು ೕ6ೈಲR@ dೕ‡ೕ +ಾˆ Oಾd ಅಸಬPCಾu tಾವk_ೋ ಯುವ'ಯQೊಂnೆ OಾತಾಡುವkದನುR ಾನು ೋd ಪ%Rc_ಾಗ +ೋ(ಂದ ನನR 6ೆ(Rೆ 6ಾಸುಂDೆ ಬರುವಂUೆ bೋdnದುr bೊDೆತ UಾಳFಾರ_ೆ +ೆಳೆ :_ಾrಗ ನನR ಗಂಡನು +ಾ(ಂದ 5ಾdc ಒದುr 1ೇ ಮಹdmಂದ eಟಲುಗಳ ಮೂಲಕ +ೆಳೆ :ೕಳfವಂUೆ ಒnrರುUಾVQೆ. ಆ ಸಮಯದ@ ನನR ಅUೆVಯು ನನR ಗಂಡನ ಪರ ವac ಅವನು ಗಂಡಸು ಏಾದರು Oಾd+ೊಳfgUಾVೆ (ೕನು ಏ+ೆ ಪ%Rcn_ೆ. ಎಂದು ನನRನುR 6ೈnರುUಾVQೆ. Oಾರೆ nನ ಮುಂ5ಾೆ ನನR XಕYಮZ ಮತುV Oಾವ(ೆ - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3093 CRL.P No. 12321 of 2023 ಷಯ 'jc_ಾಗ ಅವರುಗಳf ಕೂಡ ನನR ಗಂಡನನುR ಏನನುR ಪ%RcದಂUೆ Uಾೕತು OಾdರುUಾVQೆ. ಆ ನಂತರ ಾನು 6ೆಂಗಳ8ೆ ೌಕೆ bೋಗುವkದು 6ೇಡ ಎಂದು QಾŠಾe (ೕdcದುr, ನನR ಗಂಡನು ದುಷಟಗಳನುR ಮುಂದುವQೆcದುr Qಾ'% ಕುdದು ಬಂದು ಆತನು 6ೇQೆ bೆಣು†ಗ‹ೆ8ಂnೆ ನDೆcದ ಸಂ4ಾಷೆ ಮತುV dೕ‡ೕ +ಾˆ ಗಳನುR Uೋc OಾನcಕCಾu Xತ% aಂAೆ (ೕdರುUಾVQೆ. ಮುಂ5ಾೆ ನನR ಗಂಡ(ೆ ಈ ಾರCಾu aೕೆFಾ@ OಾdದQೆ bೇೆ ಎಂದು ಪ%Rc_ಾಗ ಸದ ಅವರ 6ೈˆ cೕŒ •ಾŽ ಮತುV dೕ‡ೕಗಳನುR ನನR ೕ6ೈˆೆ ಕಳfac ಅ_ೇನು Oಾd+ೊಳfg'Vೕ‡ೕ Oಾd+ೋ (ನRನು (ೕನು ಒeZ ೋd+ೊ (ನೆ ನನR bೆಂಡ'tಾu ಇರುವ tಾವ ‡ೕಗPUೆಯು ಇಲ@ ಎಂದು 6ೈnದುr ಸದ ಾರವನುR ನನR ತಂ_ೆೆ 'jc ಬರುವkದ+ೆY bೇj_ಾಗ ನನR ತಂ_ೆ Uಾm ಬಂದು ನನRನುR ನನR ತವರು ಮೆೆ ಕQೆದು+ೊಂಡು bೊರ<ಾಗ ಮೆಯ ಮುಂ_ೆ (ಂತು Aಾವ3ಜ(ಕCಾu ವಡ• Aೋ‹ೆಮಕYಳ (ಮೆ (ಮZ ಮಗಳನುR ನನR ಮೆಯ@ 6ಾjಸುವ ‡ೕಗPUೆ ಇಲ@ ಕQೆದು+ೊಂಡು bೋu Dೈವ3 Uೆೆದು+ೊjg ಇಲ@nದrQೆ ವ ಗ! ಬಂದು 5 ೕ cೕeಎೆ† ಖಚು3 Oಾಡುವk_ಾu ಇಲ@Cೆ tಾವk_ಾದರು Cಾಹನ ಹ'Vc +ೊಲು@ವk_ಾu 6ೆದ+ೆ bಾರುUಾVQೆ. ನನR ತಂ_ೆಯ ಮೆೆ ಬಂದ ನಂತರ 1 ವಷ3ಗಳ +ಾಲ tಾವk_ೇ ಸಂಪಕ3ಲ@_ೆ Šೕcದುr nಾಂಕ: 29-12-2022 ರಂದು 02-00 . ಎಂ ೆ ವ ಗ!+ೆY eೕಲYಂಡ ವPVಗಳf ಎFಾ@ರೂ ಆಗGc ನನR ತಂ_ೆಯ ಮೆಯ@ ಪಂಾಯ' Oಾdದುr, ಪಂಾಯ' ಸಮಯದ@ ಎFಾ@ ಸಂಬಂ)ಕರ ಮತುV AೆRೕaತರ ಮುಂ_ೆ ನನೆ ನŒನ ತಂ_ೆೆ ವಡ• 6ೇವcೕ3 Aೋ‹ೆಮಕYಳ (ಮೆ ಒಂದು ಸಂAಾYರ ಇ_ೆtಾ (ಮZಂತವರ ಮೆmಂದ bೆಣು†ತಂದು ಾವk ತಪkH Oಾd_ೇವk ನಮZ ಹುಡುಗ ಗಂಡಸು ಅವನ Uಾಕ'VನಂUೆ ಅವನು Šೕವನ OಾಡುUಾVೆ. (ೕನು ಮನೆ ಬಂದು ನ Zಂnೆ Šೕವನ Oಾಡುವk_ಾದQೆ ೌಕ Oಾd ಪ%' 'ಂಗಳf ಎFಾ@ ಹಣವನುR ನನR ಗಂಡ(ೆ (ೕಡ6ೇಕು bಾಗೂ ಆತನನುR ಏನನುR ಪ%Rಸ6ಾರದು ಎಂದು ಶರತುV bಾದುr ಾನು ಒಪH_ೇ ಇ_ಾrಗ ಮೆಯ ಮುಂ_ೆ (ಂತು ಅCಾಚP ಶಬrಗjಂದ (ಂnc bೋಗುCಾಗ ನನR ಗಂಡ ನನRನುR bೊರೆ ಕQೆದು ವಡ• 6ೇವc3 ಮುಂDೆ Dೈ‘ೕ3 Uೆೆದು+ೊಳg_ೆ ಏನು Oಾಡು'Vnrೕtಾ "ನನೆ ಅ5ೆಂ3Ž Dೈ‘ೕ3 6ೇಕು" ಇಲ@nದr@ ನಮZ ಅಪH ಅಮZ bಾಗೂ ನನRನುR +ೊX| bಾಕುವk_ಾu Šೕವ 6ೆದ+ೆ bಾರುUಾVQೆ. ತ“ಣ ಾವkಗಳf ಮa‹ಾ ೕ ಾೆಯ@ ದೂರು _ಾಖcದುr, ೕ ಾೆmಂದ ಅವರುಗjೆ ”ೕŒ ಮೂಲಕ ಬರಲು 'jc_ಾಗ ಅವರುಗಳf ಎರಡು ಮೂರು ಸಲ ಸಮಯ Uೆೆದು+ೊಂdದುr ಆನಂತರ ಾೆೆ ಬಂnರುವknˆಲ. ತದನಂತರ ಾವkಗಳf ವ ಗ! ನಗರದ d.Cೈ.ಎ.. ಕ•ೇೆ 4ೇy (ೕd ನDೆದ ಘಟೆಯನುR ಸಂಪ„ಣ3Cಾu - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3093 CRL.P No. 12321 of 2023 'jc_ೆವk. ಆಗ OಾನP d.Cೈ.ಎ.. ರವರು ಸಹ ಆ ವPVಗjೆ ಕQೆOಾd ಾರೆೆ ಬರಲು bೇjದುr, ಅವರ ಹ'Vರ ಸಹ ಬರಲು ಸಮಯ +ೇjರುUಾVQೆ ನಂತರ ಬಂnರುವknಲ@. ಈ ಘಟೆ ನDೆದು ಸ ಸುOಾರು 3 'ಂಗಳfಗ‹ಾದರು ಸಹ tಾರ Oಾ'ಗೂ 6ೆFೆ+ೊಡ_ೆ ಇ@ಯ ತನಕ ಬಂnರುವknಲ@. ಈ nವಸ ಾನು ನಮZ ಕುಟುಂಬದವQೊಂnೆ ಚX3c nಾಂಕ: 30/03/2023 ರಂದು ಾೆೆ ಬಂದು ದೂರು (ೕdರುUೆVೕೆ. ಆದುದಂದ ನನR ಗಂಡ ಸು.%/, ಅUೆV ಶಕFಾ, XಕYಮZ ಪಂಕ5ಾ, ಮತುV Oಾವ ಸಂUೋಷ ರವರ eೕFೆ Uಾವkಗಳf ಸೂಕV +ಾನೂನು ಕ%ಮ +ೈೊಂಡು ನನೆ ಮತುV ನನR ತಂ_ೆ Uಾmಯವೆ ರ“ೆ (ೕಡ6ೇ+ಾu +ೇj+ೊಳfgUೆVೕೆ. 1) ಸು.%ೕ/ ಎಂ ತಂ_ೆ FೇŽ c ಮುತುV, Cಾಸ Qಾಮನಗರ, ಟೂ%˜ FೈŒ, Qಾಮಮಂnರ ಭಜಾ ಮಂnರ ಎದುರು, Qಾಮನಗರ, : 9632013143\ 2) ಶಕFಾ +ೋಂ FೇŽ c ಮುತುV, Cಾಸ Qಾಮನಗ,. ಟೂ%˜ FೈŒ, Qಾಮಮಂnರ ಭಜಾ ಮಂnರ ಎದುರು, Qಾಮನಗರ, : 7996409454 3) ಪಂಕ5ಾ +ೆ +ೋಂ Qಾ5ೇಂದ%, Cಾಸ Qಾಜ +ೆಂxೆೌಡ ನಗರ. 06 ೇ 'ರುವk, ಚನRಪಟಣ. : 7411655756/8660323922. 4) ಸಂUೋ] +ೆ ತಂ_ೆ FೇŽ ಕೃಷ†, Cಾಸ Qಾಜ +ೆಂxೆೌಡ ನಗರ, 05 ೇ 'ರುವk, : 9844537224 / 9972915666 ಇಂ' nಾಂಕ: 30/03/2023 ಸ›ಳ: ವ ಗ! ಸa ದೂರು_ಾರರು” 11. Insofar as the present petitioners are concerned, even in the complaint, nothing is found, insofar as the offence under Section 498A of the IPC is concerned, the ingredients for the said offence are completely absent. Insofar as the provisions of the Atrocities Act are concerned, as observed herein above and the admitted - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3093 CRL.P No. 12321 of 2023 facts in the lis, the first petitioner also belongs to a Scheduled Caste and therefore, the offence under the Atrocities Act cannot spring against the first petitioner. Insofar as the other offences and the offence under the Atrocities Act qua the other petitioners are concerned, the hurling of abuses has admittedly taken place in the year 2022 i.e., on 29.12.2022 and the complainant has taken more than 4 months to register the complaint for an offence that has taken place in the year 2022. Therefore, the delay would undoubtedly lead to an inference that the complaint is full of embellishments of the events that have not taken place. 12. The Police after investigation file the charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtained in column No.17 reads as follows: “17. 17. 17. 17. +ೇcನ +ೇcನ +ೇcನ +ೇcನ ಸಂ^ಪV ಸಂ^ಪV ಸಂ^ಪV ಸಂ^ಪV AಾQಾಂಶ AಾQಾಂಶ AಾQಾಂಶ AಾQಾಂಶ _ೋ•ಾQೋಪಣ ಪತ%ದ@ನ Aಾ^-19 ರವರು (ೕdದ _ಾಖFೆ ಆžಾರದ eೕFೆ ಪ%ಕರಣದ .tಾ3n Aಾ^-01 ರವರು 4ೋ (ಪಷ 5ಾ') 5ಾ'ೆ AೇದವQಾuದುr, _ೋ•ಾQೋಪಣ ಪತ%ದ@,ನ Aಾ^-20 ರವರು (ೕdದ _ಾಖFೆ ಆžಾರದ eೕFೆ +ಾಲಂ ನಂ.12 ರ@ ಕಂಡ ಎ1, ಎ2 ಆQೋ.ತರುಗಳf ಆn _ಾ%ಡ (ಪಷ 5ಾ'ೆ) AೇದವQಾuದುr ಮತುV _ೋ•ಾQೋಪಣ - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3093 CRL.P No. 12321 of 2023 ಪತ%ದ@ನ Aಾ^-21 ರವರು (ೕdದ _ಾಖFೆ ಆžಾರದ eೕFೆ +ಾಲಂ ನಂ.12 ರ@, ಕಂಡ ಎ3, ಎ4 ಆQೋ.ತರು ದtಾ 5ಾ'ೆ AೇದವQಾuರುUಾVQೆ. Aಾ^-1 ರವರು ಇಂŠ(ೕಯ ಪಧೕಧQೆ ಆuದುr, +ಾಲಂ ನಂ 12 ರ@ ಕಂಡ ಎ1 ಆQೋ.ತೊಂnೆ nಾಂಕ 31/08/2020 ಮದುCೆtಾuದುr, ಮದುCೆಯ ಸಮಯದ@ ವರದ^ೆ ಮತುV ವQೋಪಾರCಾu (ೕಡುವಂUೆ +ಾಲಂ ನಂ 12 ರ@ ಕಂಡ ಆQೋ.ತರುಗಳf 6ೇd+ೆ ಇyದುr ಅದರಂUೆ Aಾ^-2 ಮತುV Aಾ^-3 ರವರು Aಾ^-1 ರವರ ಮದುCೆಾu ಎ1 ಆQೋ.ತ(ೆ 100 ಾ%ಂ ಬಂಾರದ ಆಭರಣ ಮತುV ರೂ.2,50,000/- ನಗದು, ಮದುCೆ ಖX3ಾu ರೂ.1,50,000/- +ೊಟು ಮದುCೆ Oಾdದುr, ನಂತರದ@ ಎ1 ಆQೋ.ತನು ಪ%' (ತP ಕುdದು ಬಂದು ಾಃ +ಾರಣ ಜಗಳ Uೆೆದು (ೕನು ದುdದ ಹಣವನುR ನನೆ +ೊಡು ಎಂದು .ೕdಸು'V_ಾrಗ Aಾ^-1 ರವರು ಅದನುR ಪ%Rc_ಾಗ ಾನು ಇರುವk_ೇ aೕೆ, ಇರುವ_ಾದQೆ ನನR 5ೊUೆ ಇರು, ಇಲ@CಾದQೆ (ನR _ಾ (ೕನು ೋd+ೊ ಎಂದು bೇಳf'Vದುr. ನಂತರದ@ ಎ1 ಆQೋ.ತನು ಇತQೆ bೆಣು† ಮಕY‹ೆ8ಂnೆ Cಾ<ಾ˜ ಾŽ Oಾಡು'Vದುr, ಅದನುR Aಾ^-1 ರವರು ೋd ಪ%Rc_ಾಗ ಎ1 ಆQೋ.ತನು +ೋ(ಂದ Aಾ^-1 ರವೆ bೊDೆnದುr, ಈ ಷಯವನುR Aಾ^ 1 ರವರು ಎ2, ಎ3 ಮತುV ಎ4 ಆQೋ.ತೆ 'jc_ಾಗ ಅವರುಗಳf ಸಹ ಎ1 ಆQೋ.ತನನುR ಏನನೂR ಪ%RಸದಂUೆ Uಾೕತು OಾdರುUಾVQೆ, ಎ1 ಆQೋ.ತನ ಸಂಪಕ3ಲ@_ೇ ವ ಗ!ದ ತಂ_ೆಯ ಮೆಯ_ಾrಗ nಾಂಕ 30/12/2022 ರಂದು ಸುOಾರು ಮ_ಾPಹR 2-00 ಗಂ<ೆಯ@ +ಾಲಂ ನಂ 12 ರ@ ಕಂಡ ಆQೋ.ತQೆಲ@ರೂ ಬಂದು ಪಂಾmV Oಾd ಆ ಸಮಯದ@ ಾಃ +ಾರಣ ಜಗಳ Uೆೆದು Aಾ^-1 ರವೆ ವDಾ• 6ೇವc3 Aೊ‹ೆ ಮಗ‹ೇ ಎಂದು 5ಾ' (ಂದೆ Oಾd 6ೇವc3 ಮುಂDೆ d‘ೕ3 Uೆೆದು+ೊಳg_ೇ ಏನು Oಾಡು'Vnrೕtಾ ಎಂದು Aಾ^-1 ರವರ ಅಪH ಅಮZ bಾಗೂ Aಾ^-1 ರವೆ +ೊX| bಾಕುವk_ಾu Šೕವ 6ೆದ+ೆ bಾರುವkದು ಇದುವQೆuನ ತ(ƒೆmಂದ ಕಂಡು ಬಂದ eೕQೆೆ +ಾಲಂ ನಂ 12 ರ@ ಕಂಡ ಎ1, ಎ2 ಆQೋ.ತೆ ಕಲಂ 498(ಎ), 504, 506 ಸaತ 34 ಐ.c ಮತುV ಕಲಂ 3 ಅಂ¡ 4 d. +ಾ¢r bಾಗೂ ಕಲಂ 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(Va)SC/ST Act 2015 ರ ೕUಾP ಸ@ಸFಾದ _ೋ•ಾQೋಪಾ ಪy.” 13. If the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet are read in tandem, what would unmistakably emerge is, the crime being registered and the charge sheet being filed, all on omnibus statements made against these petitioners/accused Nos.2, 3 and 4. Insofar as the - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3093 CRL.P No. 12321 of 2023 offences under the Atrocities Act is concerned, as observed, it is an incident that has taken place 4 months ago and the complaint also does not indicate whether the abuses are hurled in a public place or a place of public view. Ostensibly so, the abuses are hurled within the 4 corners of the house, as the dispute runs in the family. 14. In that light, permitting further proceedings qua the offences under the Atrocities Act would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of HITESH VERMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND1 wherein the Apex Court while interpreting the phrase “any place within public view” holds 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 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. 1 (2020) 10 SCC 710 - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3093 CRL.P No. 12321 of 2023 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 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 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 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 2 is a member of Scheduled Caste. - 14 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3093 CRL.P No. 12321 of 2023 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 v. State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] . 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 by someone from the road or lane outside the boundary 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 (sic) [Ed. : This sentence appears to be contrary to what is stated below in the extract from Swaran Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in the application of this principle in para 15, below:“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.”] . The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28) “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 - 15 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3093 CRL.P No. 12321 of 2023 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 which is owned or leased by the Government or the municipality (or other local body) or gaonsabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies.” (emphasis in original) 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 [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] , 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 2 herself. Due to dispute, the appellant and others were not permitting Respondent 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, intimidated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. - 16 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3093 CRL.P No. 12321 of 2023 17. In another judgment reported as Khuman Singh v. State of M.P. [Khuman Singh v. State of M.P., (2020) 18 SCC 763 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1104], 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: “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. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out. 19. This Court in a judgment reported as Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra [Subhash Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC 454: (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 124] issued certain directions in respect of investigations required to be conducted under the Act. In a review filed by the Union against the said - 17 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3093 CRL.P No. 12321 of 2023 judgment, this Court in a judgment reported as Union of India v. State of Maharashtra [Union of India v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 4 SCC 761: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 686] reviewed the directions issued by this Court and held that if there is a false and unsubstantiated FIR, the proceedings under Section 482 of the Code can be invoked. The Court held as under: (Union of India case [Union of India v. State of Maharashtra, (2020) 4 SCC 761: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 686], SCC p. 797, para 52) “52. There is no presumption that the members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes may misuse the provisions of law as a class and it is not resorted to by the members of the upper castes or the members of the elite class. For lodging a false report, it cannot be said that the caste of a person is the cause. It is due to the human failing and not due to the caste factor. Caste is not attributable to such an act. On the other hand, members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes due to backwardness hardly muster the courage to lodge even a first information report, much less, a false one. In case it is found to be false/unsubstantiated, it may be due to the faulty investigation or for other various reasons including human failings irrespective of caste factor. There may be certain cases which may be false that can be a ground for interference by the Court, but the law cannot be changed due to such misuse. In such a situation, it can be taken care of in proceeding under Section 482 CrPC.” 20. Later, while examining the constitutionality of the provisions of the amending Act (Central Act 27 of 2018), this Court in a judgment reported as Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India [Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 657] held that proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code. It was held as under: (SCC p. 751, para 12) “12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameters, as already observed while deciding the - 18 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3093 CRL.P No. 12321 of 2023 review petitions. The legal position is clear, and no argument to the contrary has been raised.” 21. In Gorige Pentaiah [Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P., (2008) 12 SCC 531 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 446] , one of the arguments raised was non-disclosure of the caste of the accused but the facts were almost similar as there was civil dispute between parties pending and the allegation was that the accused has called abuses in the name of the caste of the victim. The High Court herein has misread the judgment of this Court in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale [Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 3 SCC 789 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 20] as it was not a case about the caste of the victim but the fact that the accused was belonging to upper caste was not mentioned in the FIR. The High Court of Bombay had quashed the proceedings for the reason that the caste of the accused was not mentioned in the FIR, therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is not made out. In an appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court, this Court held that this will be the matter of investigation as to whether the accused either belongs to or does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the High Court erred in law to dismiss the quashing petition relying upon later larger Bench judgment. 22. The appellant had sought quashing of the charge-sheet on the ground that the allegation does not make out an offence under the Act against the appellant merely because Respondent 2 was a Scheduled Caste since the property dispute was not on account of the fact that Respondent 2 was a Scheduled Caste. The property disputes between a vulnerable section of the society and a person of upper caste will not disclose any offence under the Act unless, the allegations are on account of the victim being a Scheduled Caste. Still further, the finding that the appellant was aware of the caste of the informant is wholly inconsequential as the knowledge does not bar any person to protect his rights by way of a procedure established by law. - 19 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3093 CRL.P No. 12321 of 2023 23. This Court in a judgment reported as Ishwar Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. [Ishwar Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 13 SCC 612 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 818] held that there is no prohibition under the law for quashing the charge-sheet in part. In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court is required to examine as to whether its intervention is required for prevention of abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court held as under : (SCC p. 618, para 9) “9. Having regard to the settled legal position on external interference in investigation and the specific facts of this case, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice. There is no prohibition under law for quashing a charge-sheet in part. A person may be accused of several offences under different penal statutes, as in the instant case. He could be aggrieved of prosecution only on a particular charge or charges, on any ground available to him in law. Under Section 482, all that the High Court is required to examine is whether its intervention is required for implementing orders under the Criminal Procedure Code or for prevention of abuse of process, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. A charge-sheet filed at the dictate of somebody other than the police would amount to abuse of the process of law and hence the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 to the extent of the abuse. There is no requirement that the charge-sheet has to be quashed as a whole and not in part. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The supplementary report filed by the police, at the direction of the Commission, is quashed.” 24. In view of the above facts, we find that the charges against the appellant under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act are not made out. Consequently, the charge-sheet to that extent is quashed. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.”” (E(Emphasis supplied) - 20 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3093 CRL.P No. 12321 of 2023 15. Therefore, the petition deserves to succeed and the criminal proceedings instituted against the petitioners deserve to be quashed. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: ORDER (i) The criminal petition is allowed. (ii) The proceedings in Spl.C.No.209/2023 pending before the IInd Additional District and Sessions Judge at Shivamogga qua the petitioners stands quashed. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE HB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30