Shri M Shivamurthy S/O. Manjunath M Vs the State of Karnataka

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY HOSAHALLI POLICE STATION, KUDLIGI TALUK, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583218. REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD-580011.

¶14

BASAVARAJ S/O. LATE GURUKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT SHANTHANAHALLI, HARAKABHAVI, KUDLIGI TALUK, VIJAYANAGAR DISTRICT-583135.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R-1, SRI. D.J.NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC-D:11398 CRL.P No. 101450 of 2024

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C NO.65/2023 ON THE FILE OF IST ADDITIONAL DISTRICT SESSION JUDGE AT BALLARI WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO. 241/2022 OF HOSAHALLI POLICE STATION, FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION U/S 504 OF IPC AND 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF SC AND ST PREVENTION OF ATROCITY ACT 1989, AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.

¶20

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court with a prayer

¶24

to quash the entire proceedings in Special Case No.65 of 2023 pending before the Court of 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Ballari, arising out of Crime No.241 of 2022, registered by Hosahalli P.S., Kottur Circle, Vijayanagara District for the offences punishable under Section 504 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989.

¶25

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

¶27

even if the allegations found in the first information as well

¶28

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11398 CRL.P No. 101450 of 2024

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

as in the charge sheet are presumed to be true, the alleged offences punishable under the provisions of the SC and ST (POA) Act cannot be made out against the petitioner. The alleged act has not been committed by the petitioner in a public place and in public view. On the other hand, the first informant and his family members had trespassed into the property of the petitioner and had fought with him. Based on a belated complaint, which was filed after five days from the alleged date of incident, the present proceeding is initiated against the petitioner. He accordingly prays to allow the petition.

¶31

Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 have opposed the prayer made in the petition. They submit that there are sufficient materials to invoke the alleged offences against the petitioner. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition.

¶32

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11398 CRL.P No. 101450 of 2024

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

FIR in the present case was registered in Crime No.241 of 2022 by Hosahalli P.S., Kottur Circle, Vijayanagara District for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504, 355, 307, 323, 324 red with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC and ST (POA) Act against the petitioner and his family members, based on the first information dated 23.11.2022 received from the injured-victim Basavaraja. After completing the investigation, charge sheet has been filed against the petitioner for offences punishable under Section 504 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC and ST (POA) Act. The learned Sessions Judge who has taken cognizance of the charge sheeted offences has issued summons against the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is before this Court.

¶35

Perusal of the material on record would go to show that the land bearing Survey No. 503 measuring 2 acres situated at Shantanalli Village, originally belonged to the first informant, who had sold the same to PW11,

¶36

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11398 CRL.P No. 101450 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Nagendrappa, under a registered sale deed, dated 25.06.1999. The said Nagendrappa had subsequently sold the said land in favour of the petitioner’s mother, under a registered sale deed, dated 13.08.2001. Ever since then, the petitioner and his family members are in possession of the said property.

¶39

On 18.11.2022, when the petitioner was spraying insecticides to the crop grown by him in the aforesaid land, the first informant and his family members forcibly trespassed into the land in question and in the fight that took place thereafter, the petitioner allegedly had abused the first informant referring to his caste name. According to the first informant, the said act committed by the petitioner was recorded in a video, by his son and CW6 - Basappa was present at the spot, when the petitioner allegedly abused the first informant referring to the caste. The statement of CW6 - Basappa has been recorded in the present case, during the course of investigation on 24.11.2022. The said Basappa has stated that, on the alleged date of incident at

¶40

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11398 CRL.P No. 101450 of 2024

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

about 8:00 a.m., when the petitioner was spraying insecticide to his crop grown in his property, the first informant and his family members after breaking open the lock of the gate to the property of the petitioner, entered into the property of the petitioner and asked the petitioner not to spray insecticides and claimed that the said property belongs to them. He has further stated that the petitioner abused the first informant using filthy language and stopped spraying insecticides and went away. The first informant also abused the petitioner using filthy language and the entire incident was recorded in the mobile phone of the first informant's son. The independent witness i.e., Basappa, who was present at the spot of crime has not stated that the petitioner had abused the first informant or his family members referring to their caste. The only allegation is that the petitioner had abused the first informant using filthy language and in turn, the first informant also had abused the petitioner using filthy language.

¶43

7 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11398 CRL.P No. 101450 of 2024

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

From the statement of CW6 - Basappa, who is an independent witness, it is apparent that the first informant and his family members were the aggressors and they had trespassed into the land of the petitioner after breaking open the lock of the gate, and thereafter had quarrelled with the petitioner.

¶46

For the purpose of attracting the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC and ST (POA) Act, the alleged act committed by the accused should be in a public place and in the public view. The incident in question has taken place in the property of the petitioner, which is not a public place and except CW6 - Basappa, no other public was present at the spot. The said Basappa does not state anything about petitioner abusing the first informant or his family members referring to their caste. Therefore, I am of the opinion that, the offences punishable under the provisions of the SC and ST (POA) Act have been wrongly invoked in the present case. So far as the offence punishable under Section 504 of the IPC is

¶47

8 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:11398 CRL.P No. 101450 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

concerned, the same is a non-cognizable offence and without complying with Section 155(2) of the Cr.P.C., FIR

¶50

could not have been registered for the said offence.

¶51

Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that, if the impugned criminal proceeding is allowed to continue, the same would amount to abuse of process of law. Accordingly, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

(i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶54

(ii) The entire proceedings in Special Case No.65 of 2023 pending before the Court of 1^st Additional District and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Ballari, arising out of Crime No.241 of 2022, registered by Hosahalli P.S., Kottur Circle, Vijayanagara District for the offences punishable under Section 504 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC and ST (POA) Act, 1989 stands quashed.

¶55

Sd/(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE

¶56

VNP / CT: GSM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 52

Shri M Shivamurthy S/O. Manjunath M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri M Shivamurthy S/O. Manjunath M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Imran S/O. B. Jameelsab Vs the State of Karnataka

Imran S/O. B. Jameelsab Vs the State of Karnataka

Imran S/O. B. Jameelsab Vs the State of Karnataka

Kaleem Pasha S/O Abdul Basith Vs Sri Imam Hussain Alias Basha Bhai

Lakkappa S/O Laxman Betageri Vs the State of Karnataka

Mansur S/O Gujari Husen Vs the State of Karnataka