High Court quashed criminal proceedings under IPC and SC/ST (PoA) Act. Court held alleged caste abuse occurred inside factory (not public view) and lacked specific overt acts. Property dispute was civil matter.
Criminal petitions allowed; impugned proceedings in Spl.C.Nos.214/2020 and 670/2021 quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NC: 2023:KHC:41248 CRL.P No. 3590 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 3602 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3590 OF 2022
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3602 OF 2022
IN CRL.P.No.3590/2022
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: High Court of Karnataka
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GIREESHA J T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.C.JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.214/2020 ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.448, 427, 323, 354, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC, SEC.3(1)(R)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
IN CRL.P.No.3602/2022
BETWEEN:
NAGASANDRA,
BANGALORE – 560 073.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GIREESHA J T., ADVOCATE)
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.C.JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.670/2021 ON
THE FILE OF THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S. 323, 324, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(r)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
IN Crl.P.No.3590/2022:
The petitioners are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427, 323, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.
second respondent with reference to caste. He further submits that the alleged incident had not taken place within the public view so as to constitute the commission of the offence under the provisions of the Prevention of Atrocities Act. He further submits that the birth certificate issued by the Headmaster of the School concerned indicates that the second respondent belongs to Vokkaliga Community and not Scheduled Caste Community.
In Crl.P.No.3602/2022:
point of time, the accused abused the CW.1 in filthy language with reference to caste and also assaulted with stone etc.
“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 socioeconomic 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.”
NC: 2023:KHC:41248 CRL.P No. 3590 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 3602 of 2022
the purview of the public view to constitute the commission of offence under Section 3(1) (r) (s) of the Prevention of Atrocities Act. The filing of multiple complaints on the same set of allegations clearly infers that the petitioners have been falsely implicated when they demanded with the defacto complaint to vacate the subject property. The petitioners have also filed a suit in O.S.No.467/2021 against respondent No.2 for permanent injunction and O.S.No.740/2022 against respondent No.2 for declaring them as owner of the subject property and the said suits are pending consideration. Therefore, the FIR lodged by respondent No.2 is with malice and without probable cause, so as to circumvent the petitioners from demanding respondent No.2 to vacate the subject property. Therefore, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of the process of the law. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
Sd/-
JUDGE
RKA
3 issues framed by the court
Whether criminal proceedings for offences under IPC and SC/ST (PoA) Act regarding property title dispute should be quashed as they are not offence in public view.
Whether allegations of caste-based abuse lack specific overt acts and occur in private premises preventing offence constitution.
Whether continuation of criminal proceedings constitutes abuse of process due to mala fide implication in property dispute.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
HITESH VERMA Vs. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHERRelied on¶7
(2020) 10 SCC 710 · Who else cites this
HITESH VERMA Vs. THE STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHERExplained¶10
HITESH VERMA (supra)
3 provisions across 2 enactments
RAJESH AND ANR
STATE OF KARNATAKA
P.C.LATHA AND SHIVAPPA
HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
