Dismissed¶¶95

Sri Rahul M v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Oct 2025CRL.P/1886/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing of FIR refused at threshold — CRL.P 1886/2025, Karnataka HC, Mohammad Nawaz J, 28-10-2025; FIR Crime No.6/2025 Yelahanka PS; SC/ST (POA) 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a); BNS 2023 115(2), 118(1), 352, 3(5); 'public view' ingredient held premature to assess; chopper shows intention; S.482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS no mini trial; prima facie case from complaint; D. Venkatasubramanian (2009) 10 SCC 488 relied on for non-interference with investigation; counsel-cited precedents (Daya Bhatnagar; Karuppudayar; Hitesh Verma; Rithesh Pais; Khuman Singh; Swaran Singh) referred but not adopted; petition dismissed; I.A.No.2/2025 disposed.

What did the court decide?

At the admission stage it is too premature to hold that the incident is not within public view or that the ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out. ¶¶83

Sri Rahul M Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶¶95

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.6/2025 registered at Yelahanka Police Station and the proceedings pending thereon against the petitioners, for offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) provisions and Sections 115(2), 118(1), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, should be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C./Section 528 BNSS. +1 more

¶¶32

Court's answer

While exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this Court cannot conduct a mini trial; its jurisdiction is very limited.

¶¶94

Ratio / Principle

At the admission stage it is too premature to hold that the incident is not within public view or that the ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out.

¶¶83

Key takeaways

The accused were allegedly armed with a dangerous weapon (chopper) at the time of the incident, which shows their intention; the investigation is in progress and statements of witnesses remain to be recorded — factors weighing against threshold quashing.ratio¶¶83
There is a prima facie case against the petitioners made out from the complaint averments; no grounds are made to quash the proceedings.ratio¶¶94
Relying on D. Venkatasubramanian v. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari ((2009) 10 SCC 488), the statutory obligation and duty of police to investigate into crime should not be normally interfered with.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka HC (Mohammad Nawaz J, order dated 28-10-2025) dismissed CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025, filed under S.482 Cr.P.C./S.528 BNSS, seeking quashing of FIR in Crime No.6/2025 (Yelahanka PS) pending before the LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-71), Bengaluru, for offences under SS.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a) of the SC/ST (POA) provisions and SS.115(2), 118(1), 352 and 3(5) of the BNS, 2023. Counsel for petitioners relied on Daya Bhatnagar, Karuppudayar, Hitesh Verma, Rithesh Pais and Khuman Singh to argue omnibus caste-abuse allegations not within 'public view' and ignorance of the complainant's caste. The Court held it too premature at this stage to say the incident was not within public view or that ingredients were absent; the complainant's friends were present at the spot, the incident occurred outside four walls, and the accused were allegedly armed with a chopper showing intention; investigation was in progress. Invoking D. Venkatasubramanian ((2009) 10 SCC 488), the Court held police investigation should not normally be interfered with, that no mini trial is permissible under S.482 Cr.P.C., and that a prima facie case stood made out from the complaint averments. Petition dismissed; observations confined to disposal of the petition; I.A.No.2/2025 disposed of.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:42816 CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1886 OF 2025

¶9

(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI RAHUL M S/O MANJUNATH.R, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, NO.9, SRI SAI SAMRUDHI APARTMENT,

¶12

SRINIVASAPURA, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064 AADHAR NO.2175 0063 8930

¶13

Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SRI RAKESH M S/O MANJUNATH.R, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, NO.9, SRI SAI SAMRUDHI APARTMENT, SRINIVASAPURA, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064 AADHAR NO. 2591 6701 0215

¶15

SRI MANJUNATH R S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, NO.9, SRI SAI SAMRUDHI APARTMENT, SRINIVASAPURA, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064 AADHAR NO. 8850 1242 3473

¶16

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VENKATESHA T S, ADVOCATE (P/H))

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:42816 CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AND:

¶21

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, YELAHANKA SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE CITY-560064 REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001.

¶22

SRI PRAJWAL S/O PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, SJ LAYOUT, OPP HEMANNASWAMY TEMPLE, BALAJI LAYOUT, SRINIVASAPURA, YELAHANKA-560064

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI.M.V.ANOOP KUMAR., HCGP FOR R1 (P/H) SRI. HARSHA M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. INDRA DHANUSH M.A., ADVOCATE FOR R2 (P/H))

¶25

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.6/2025 REGISTERED BY YELAHANKA P.S., BENGALURU CITY, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-71), BANGALORE, FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 115(2), 118(1), 352, 3(5) OF THE BNS, 2023, U/S 3(1)(r),3(1)(s),3(2)(5a) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.

¶26

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

¶27

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:42816 CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶31

ORAL ORDER

¶32

Petitioners are seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.6/2025 registered at Yelahanka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a), of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014 and Sections 115(2), 118(1), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

¶33

The complaint is lodged by the second

¶34

respondent herein, victim in the case, wherein he has alleged that on 07.01.2025 at about 04.30 p.m., while he was returning to his house from work, he saw four boys sitting and consuming ganja and therefore, he reprimanded them. Thereafter, at about 06.58 p.m. his friend by name Rahul (accused No.1) called him and asked him to come near the Hollow block factory and when he went there along with his friends Kishore and Rehamath,

¶35

¶36

NC: 2025:KHC:42816 CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

all of a sudden the accused persons started assaulting him with a chopper on the head and with hands and abused him in filthy language, taking reference to his caste etc.

¶39

The learned counsel for the petitioners

¶40

contended that as per the complaint averments, the complainant was residing in the locality only for four months and therefore, the allegations that he knew the caste of the complainant is not correct. He further contended that there are omnibus allegations made that the complainant was abused with reference to his caste, but the incident has not taken place within the public view and therefore, the ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out.

¶41

The learned counsel has relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of his contentions:

¶42

i. Daya Bhatnagar Vs. State, LAWS(DLH)-2004-189; relevant para extracted as hereunder:

¶43

¶44

NC: 2025:KHC:42816 CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

“(19.) The SC/ST Act was enacted with a laudable object to protect vulnerable section of the society. Subclauses (i) to (xv) of Section 3(1) of the Act enumerate various kinds of atrocities that might be perpetrated against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which constitute an offence. However, Sub-clause (x) is the only clause where even offending "utterances" have been made punishable. The Legislature required intention' as an essential ingredient for the offence of "insult", "intimidation' and "humiliation' of a member of the Scheduled Casts or Scheduled Tribe in any place within "public view'. Offences under the Act are quite grave and provide stringent punishments. Graver is the offence, stronger should be the proof. The interpretation which suppresses or evades the mischief and advances the object of the Act has to be adopted. Keeping this in view, looking to the aims and objects of the Act, the expression "public view" in Section 3(1)(x) of the Act has to be interpreted to mean that the public persons present, (howsoever small number it may be), should be independent and impartial and not interested in any of the parties. In other words, persons having any kind of close relationship or association with the complainant, would necessarily get excluded. I am again in agreement with the interpretation put on the expression "public view" by learned brother Mr. Justice B. A. Khan. The relevant portion of his judgment reads as under:

¶47

"I accordingly hold that expression within "public view' occurring in Section 3(1)(x) of the Act means within the view which includes hearing, knowledge or

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:42816 CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

accessibility also, of a group of people of the place/locality/village as distinct from few who are not private and are as good as strangers and not linked with the complainant through any close relationship or any business, commercial or any other vested interest and who are not participating members with him in any way.If such group of people comprises anyone of these, it would not satisfy the requirement of "public view' within the meaning of the expression used." (Emphasis supplied)

¶52

(25.) To conclude, I am in complete agreement with the interpretation put by Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.A. Khan to the expression "public view" in Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. But, with great respect to the learned brother Justice Khan, I have not been able to persuade myself to agree to the conclusion reached by him on facts. "Public view" envisages that public persons present there should be independent, impartial and not having any commercial or business relationship, or other linkage with the complainant. It would also not include persons who have any previous enmity or motive to falsely implicate the accused persons.”

¶53

ii. Karuppudayar Vs. State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lalgudi, Trichy & Ors, in SLP (Criminal) No.8778-8779/2024 reported in 2025 INC 132; relevant paras are extracted hereunder:

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:42816 CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

“10. The term "any place within public view" initially came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Swaran Singh and others v. State through Standing Counsel and another reported in (2008) 8 SCC 435. This Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and another reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 referred to Swaran Singh (supra) and reiterated the legal position as under:

¶58

"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

¶59

¶60

NC: 2025:KHC:42816 CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

friends) then also it would be an offence since it is in the public view."]. The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 44344, para 28)

¶63

"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 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 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 gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies." (emphasis in original)

¶64

¶65

NC: 2025:KHC:42816 CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

11. It could thus be seen that, to be a place within public view', the place should be open where the members of the public can witness or hear the utterance made by the accused to the victim. If the alleged offence takes place within the four corners of the wall where members of the public are not present, then it cannot be said that it has taken place at a place within public view.”

¶68

iii. Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, AIR

¶69

2020 SC 5584; relevant paras are extracted hereunder:

¶70

“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, 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.

¶71

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:42816 CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

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.”

¶74

iv. Rithesh Pais Vs. State of Karnataka And Ors., MANU/KA/2638/2022 and

¶75

v. Khuman Singh Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2019 SC 4030.

¶76

In the above two judgments relied, the view is reiterated.

¶77

The learned High Court Government Pleader

¶78

and the learned counsel appearing for respondent no.2 on the other hand, contended that the complaint averments clearly disclose a prima facie case against the petitioners and the matter is still under investigation and therefore, the proceedings cannot be quashed. Accordingly they have sought to dismiss the petition.

¶79

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:42816 CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

It is not in dispute that the complainant was

¶82

admitted as an in-patient in the hospital from where his statement was recorded by the police in the presence of the Doctor. In the complaint itself it is stated that he went

¶83

to the spot along with his friends, which shows that even they were present at the spot. The incident has not taken place within four walls of a building. It is too premature to hold at this stage that the incident is not within public view or the ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out. Further, accused are alleged to have assaulted the victim with a chopper. The accused were therefore, armed with a dangerous weapon at the time of incident, which shows their intention. The investigation is in progress. Statements of the witnesses have to be recorded.

¶84

The Hon'ble Apex Court in

¶85

D.Venkatasubramanian and Others Vs. M.K.Mohan

¶86

Krishnamachari and another reported in (2009) 10

¶87

SCC 488 has held that the statutory obligation and duty of

¶88

12 -

¶89

NC: 2025:KHC:42816 CRL.P No. 1886 of 2025

¶90

HC-KAR

¶91

police to investigate into crime should not be normally

¶92

interfered with.

¶93

Further it is well settled that this Court cannot

¶94

conduct a mini trial while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. This Court has a very limited jurisdiction and whether there are sufficient materials or not is a matter which is not to be decided at this stage. This Court is of the considered view that there is a prima facie case against the petitioners made out from the complaint averments. No grounds are made to quash the proceedings.

¶95

9. Criminal Petition is dismissed .

¶96

The observations made in the order are

¶97

confined to the disposal of the petition.

¶98

I.A.No.2/2025 is disposed of .

¶99

Sd/(MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE

¶100

JT/- CT: JL

Sri Rahul M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Rahul M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Madan Mohan Vs Sri Rudresh N

Abhilash Rao @ Abhilash Rao Magavanna Vs the State of Karnataka by

Anitha G D, Vs Puttalingaiah K

J Angelin Saphier Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Chandrahasa Keshava Shetty, Vs the State of Karnataka

Rinku Devi @ Rinku Vs Staet by Harihara Town Police