- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:755 CRL.P No. 104630 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.104630 OF 2025 (482 OF Cr.PC/528 OF BNSS) BETWEEN: SHRI ALLABAKSH S/O. BURANASAB HANAGI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: EDITOR, R/O. MOLLA GALLI, HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOT-587118. …PETITIONER (BY SRI HEMANTHKUMAR L. HAVARAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: SMT. ASHWINI W/O. RAJASHEKHAR DODDAMANI, AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVANT, R/O. B.T.D.A. VIDYAGIRI, BAGALKOT, TQ. AND DIST. BAGALKOT-587104. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI SRINIVAS B. NAIK, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS,) PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED COGNIZANCE ORDER DATED 22/08/2025 IN PRIVATE COMPLAINT BEARING NO.PCR NO.01/2023, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 500, 501(b), 502(b), 509, 354(C) OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(2)(Va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989, PENDING BEFORE THE IV ADDL DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, BAGALKOT, IN SO FAR AS PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:755 CRL.P No. 104630 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 (Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 20232) by the petitioner/accused No.1, calling in question the order of cognizance dated 22.08.2025 passed in PCR No.01/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501(b), 502(b), 509, 354(C) of Indian Penal Code, 18603, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(Va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 19894, pending on the file of learned IV Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bagalkote5. 2. The complaint is working as a Second Division Assistant in Bagalkot Town Development Authority6, Bagalkote. While discharging her duties, accused No.1/petitioner approached the complainant’s office and advised her to engage in illegal 1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Cr.p.c.’ 2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘BNSS, 2023’ 3 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’ 4 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989’ 5 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Sessions Court’ 6 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘BTDA’ - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:755 CRL.P No. 104630 of 2025 activities. The complainant did not co-operate with the directions given by accused No.1. 3. When this being the facttual position, on 02.02.2023, the complainant noticed that accused Nos.1 and 2 had published a false and defamatory article against her in the newspaper “Sangram Dhwani”, of which accused No.1/petitoner is the editor and accused No.2 is the author. Consequently, the complainant filed the complaint. 4. Upon recording the sworn statement of the complainant and upon finding that there is a prima facie case was made out by the complainant, therefore the Sessions Court took cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 500, 501(b), 502(b), 509, 354(C) of IPC, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/accused No.1 submitted that no specific offence is alleged in the complaint and that the provisions of Sections 500, 501(b), 502(b), 509, 354(C) of IPC, and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(Va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, are not attracted. It was further - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:755 CRL.P No. 104630 of 2025 submitted that continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of law and of the Court, and hence prayed for quashing of the order of congnizance passed by the Sessions Court. 6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/complainant submitted that there are sufficient prima facie materials so as to proceed against the accused persons, and therefore, the proceedings do not warrant interference by this Court. 7. Upon considering the prima facie allegations in the complaint, it is evident that there are specific allegations regarding the publication of a defamatory article in the newspaper “Sangram Dhwani”, which is edited by accused No.1 and authored by accused No.2. Also, there is a specific allegation that accused No.1, despite having knowledge that the complainant belongs to the Scheduled Caste Community, abused her with reference to caste. Further, there are prima facie allegations of abuse and interference with the official discharge of duties of the complainant. In support of the same, the complainant has examined herself as PW.1 and other witnesses - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:755 CRL.P No. 104630 of 2025 as PW.2 to PW.5. In view of the same, a prima facie case is made out for taking cognizance of the offences as alleged. The Sessions Court, therefore, was justified in taking cognizance and holding that the matter requires trial. There is no abuse of process of Court, nor is there any error in the order passed by the Sessions Court. Hence, there is no need of intereference by this Court with the order passed by the Sessions Court. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. 9. However, liberty is reserved to file an application for discharge in accordance with law. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE PMP /CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 63