Dismissed¶47

Mr.Edriyan Saul Sadhu v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Sept 2025CRL.P/12609/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of proceedings; Section 482 CrPC inherent jurisdiction; Section 528 BNSS; Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita 2023 Sections 352, 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 3(5); SC/ST (POA) Act Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va); public view requirement; secluded area; delay in lodging complaint; belated FIR; charge sheet; prima facie; sufficient ground to proceed; abuse of process; Spl.C.C.No.89/2024; Chikkamagaluru Town Police Station; accused Nos. 2 and 3; High Court of Karnataka; Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum; CRL.P No. 12609 of 2025.

What did the court decide?

This is not a fit case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings, since the charge sheet has been filed and there is adequate material supporting the accusations. ¶46

Mr.Edriyan Saul Sadhu Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the criminal proceedings pending against the petitioners (accused Nos. 2 and 3) in Spl.C.C.No.89/2024 ought to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC, the petitioners contending inter alia that the complaint was lodged after an unexplained three-day delay and that continuation would amount to abuse of process. +1 more

¶42

Court's answer

¶46

Ratio / Principle

The material collected during investigation, as reflected in the charge sheet, indicates that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners for the offences alleged.

¶43

Key takeaways

At this stage the Court cannot enter into a meticulous appreciation of evidence or adjudicate upon the truth or otherwise of the allegations, which is the exclusive domain of the trial court; the contention that the POA Act ingredients were not attracted was therefore not adjudicated at the quashing stage.ratio¶46

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru (Sachin Shankar Magadum J., 12-09-2025), CRL.P No. 12609 of 2025 under S.482 CrPC (filed as S.528 BNSS): Accused Nos. 2 and 3 (Edriyan Saul Sadhu and Girish) sought quashing of proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.89/2024 pending before the I Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Chikkamagaluru, for offences under Sections 352, 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act 2015. Contentions: complaint lodged on 20.08.2024 for an incident of 17.08.2024, an unexplained three-day delay casting doubt on the prosecution case; and the incident allegedly occurred in a secluded area, not in public view, so the POA Act ingredients were unattracted. Held: on prima facie examination the complaint discloses specific overt acts against each accused and the charge-sheet material indicates sufficient ground to proceed; meticulous appreciation of evidence and adjudication of the truth of the allegations are the exclusive domain of the trial court; not a fit case for exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. Petition dismissed without prejudice to the petitioners' right to raise all permissible defences at trial; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:36597 CRL.P No. 12609 of 2025

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12609 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MR.EDRIYAN SAUL SADHU

¶11

S/O. RONALD SANTOSH SADHU, AGED ABOUT 19 YEARS, R/AT NEAR GIRLS HOSTEL, JAYANAGARA, LAST CROSS, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.

¶12

Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

MR. GIRISH, S/O. RAJU, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, TECHNICIAN, R/AT OPPOSITE TO CATHOLIC CLUB, UNDEDASARAHALLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. B RAJA SUBRAMANYA BHAT., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶18

BY CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN POLICE STATION,

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:36597 CRL.P No. 12609 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

CHIKKAMAGALURU TOWN-577101. REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶22

MR. YOGESH N P S/O. PUTTASWAMY, AGE MAJOR, OCC PAINTER, R/AT NALLIRU COLONY, KASABA HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU DIST-577101.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.RAHUL RAI, HCGP FOR R1)

¶25

THIS CRL.P FILED U/S.482(FILED U/S.528 BNSS) CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PENDING PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.C.NO.89/2024 FOR THE OFFENCE P/US/ 352, 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 3(5) OF BNS 2023 AND SEC.3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 2015 NOW PENDING BEFORE THE I ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHIKKAMAGALURU.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:36597 CRL.P No. 12609 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

Learned HCGP is directed to accept notice for respondent No.1.

¶33

This petition is filed by accused Nos2 and 3 seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Spl.C.C.No.89/2024 for of the offences punishable under Sections 352, 115(2), 118(1), 351(2), 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act 2015 [for short 'POA Act'].

¶34

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1.

¶35

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the de facto complainant, namely Yogesh, received a telephone call from his brother, Sobharaj, on 17.08.2024. Sobharaj is stated to have informed the complainant that three individuals were abusing him near the Government School situated at Undedasarahalli. Acting upon the said information, the

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:36597 CRL.P No. 12609 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

complainant immediately rushed to the spot, where he allegedly found all the three accused persons scolding and hurling abuses at his brother. When the complainant questioned the accused about their conduct, it is alleged that they, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted the complainant. Based on the said incident, a criminal case came to be registered. After completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge sheet against the petitioners, and they are presently facing criminal proceedings before the jurisdictional Court.

¶39

The primary contention urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the alleged occurrence is stated to have taken place on 17.08.2024, whereas the complaint was lodged only on 20.08.2024, after an unexplained delay of three days. It is submitted that such a belated complaint, without any satisfactory explanation, casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the prosecution case and gives rise to a reasonable inference that a false narrative has been set up to implicate the petitioners. The learned counsel would further submit that the ingredients of the offences under Sections

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:36597 CRL.P No. 12609 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the POA Act are not attracted in the facts and circumstances of the case. According to him, even if the allegations in the complaint are taken at their face value, the incident is said to have occurred in a secluded area and not in any public view, which is an essential requirement for the applicability of the aforesaid provisions. On these grounds, it is contended that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of process of law and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to relief under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶43

This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners and has perused the material placed on record, including the contents of the complaint and the charge sheet. On a prima facie examination, the complaint discloses specific overt acts alleged against each of the accused persons. The material collected during investigation, as reflected in the charge sheet, indicates that there is sufficient ground to proceed against the petitioners for the offences alleged. At this stage, this Court cannot enter into a meticulous appreciation of evidence or adjudicate upon the

¶44

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:36597 CRL.P No. 12609 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

truth or otherwise of the allegations, which is the exclusive domain of the trial court. Since the charge sheet has already been filed and there is adequate material supporting the accusations, this Court is of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case for exercising the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash the proceedings.

¶47

In view of the foregoing discussion, the petition stands dismissed, without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners to raise all permissible defences during the course of trial. Any pending interlocutory applications, if filed, also stand disposed of in view of this order.

¶48

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶49

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 46

Mr.Edriyan Saul Sadhu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr.Edriyan Saul Sadhu v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sailen Das Vs State by Kodigehalli Police Station

K H Abdul Majeed Alias Abdul Mazeed Mysore Vs State of Karnataka

Smt L K Akila Vs Mr M Suresh

Kavitha Shetty Vs the State of Karnataka

Ms. Sonam Naresh Gangurde Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Karthikesh N C Vs Smt B L Prabhavathamma