Dismissed¶67

Sanganagouda and Ors. v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Karnataka HC1 Jul 2025CRL.P/200781/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Kalaburagi Bench; CRL.P No. 200781 of 2025; decided 01-07-2025 by Justice V Srishananda; quashing petition under Section 528 BNSS, 2023; offences under Sections 323, 427, 447, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015; Spl.(AC) No.884/2023, III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Raichur (Sindhanur); Crime No.123/2023, Balaganoor police station; cognizance held prima facie justified; dismissal with liberty to seek discharge.

What did the court decide?

On meticulous perusal of the material on record, the charge sheet contains material evidence which is prima facie enough to take cognizance, and the cognizance taken by the learned Special Judge was rightly done. ¶60

Sanganagouda and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr. — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶67

Issue for consideration

Whether the charge sheet and entire proceedings in Spl.(AC) No.884/2023 on the file of the III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Raichur (sitting at Sindhanur), against the petitioners-accused Nos. 4, 5 and 7 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 427, 447, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015, ought to be quashed.

¶27

Court's answer

¶60

Key takeaways

Liberty is reserved to all the petitioners or any one of them to file a necessary application seeking discharge if no material is found in the charge sheet sufficient to proceed under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act; the question of sufficiency of material for trial is left open to be agitated in such a discharge application.obiter¶61

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (482(Cr.PC))/S. 528 BNSS, 2023 - Quashing sought of charge sheet and entire proceedings in Spl.(AC) No.884/2023, III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Raichur (sitting at Sindhanur), against petitioners-accused Nos. 4, 5 and 7 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 427, 447, 504, 506 r/w 34 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015 - Complaint by respondent No.2 led to registration of Crime No.123/2023 on 19.09.2023 at Balaganoor police station alleging abuse of complainant by caste name, damage to pump-set motor and pipes, assault and life threat on 10.08.2023 - Petitioner's contention that police dropped some accused despite witnesses naming all, making cognizance unsustainable, rejected - Held: charge sheet contains material evidence prima facie sufficient for cognizance, which the learned Special Judge rightly took - Criminal petition dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioners to apply for discharge if the charge sheet lacks material sufficient to proceed under the SC/ST (POA) Act.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3545 CRL.P No. 200781 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶5

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶6

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF JULY, 2025

¶7

BEFORE

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200781 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI SANGANAGOUDA S/O HANUMANTARAYA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶12

SRI AMAREGOUDA S/O HANUMANTARAYA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶13

SRI MALLIKARJUN @ MALLANNA @ MALANAGOUDA S/O HANUMANTARAYA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,

¶14

Digitally signed by SUMITRA SHERIGAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

ALL ARE R/O. GONALVARA VILLAGE, TQ. MANVI, DIST. RAICHUR 584123.

¶16

…PETITIONERS

¶17

(BY SRI ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH BALAGANUR POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY ADDL. SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH, KALABURAGI.

¶20

SRI KANAKAPPA S/O SHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. BELAWATA VILLAGE, TQ. MANVI,

¶21

¶22

NC: 2025:KHC-K:3545 CRL.P No. 200781 of 2025

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

DIST. RAICHUR-584123.

¶25

…RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SMT. ARATI PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; SRI SHIVANAND V. PATTANASHETTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶27

THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023 PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PETITION AND FURTHER QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AND ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.(AC) NO.884/2023, ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. DIST AND SESSIONS JUDGE, RAICHUR (SITTING AT SINDHANUR), AGAINST THE PETITIONERS-ACCUSED NO.4, 5 AND 7 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 323, 427, 447, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND 3(1) (r) (s), 3 (2), (va) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT, 2015.

¶28

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

¶29

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA)

¶32

Heard Sri Arunkumar Amargundappa, learned

¶33

counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Arati Patil, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State

¶34

3 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3545 CRL.P No. 200781 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

and Sri Shivanand V. Pattanashetti, learned counsel for respondent No.2.

¶37

Petition under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 with the following prayer:

¶38

“Criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 praying to allow the petition and further quash the charge sheet and entire proceedings in Spl.(AC) No.884/2023, on the file of III Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Raichur (sitting at Sindhanur), against the petitioners-accused No.4, 5 and 7 for the alleged offences punishable u/Secs. 323, 427, 447, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC and Sections 3(1) (r) (s), 3 (2) (va) of SC/ST (POA) Amendment Act, 2015.”

¶39

Facts in brief, which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under:

¶40

3.1 Kanakappa S/o. Shamappa filed a complaint

¶41

with Balaganoor police station, Raichur district, based on which police have registered a case in Crime No.123/2023 on 19.09.2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 427, 447, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3545 CRL.P No. 200781 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

under Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA)

¶45

Act.

¶46

3.2 Gist of the complaint averments would reveal that on 10.08.2023 at about 8:30 a.m., complainant had been to the agriculture land of Basangouda S/o. Yamanappagouda for coolie work. When he was watering the land with the help of the pump-set, all the accused persons including the petitioners came there, abused the complainant in filthy language by taking out his caste name and also damaged the pump-set motor and the pipes, which were used for feeding the water to the land. When the complainant resisted the said act of the accused persons, all of them overpowered him by holding the shirt of the complainant and also abused him in filthy language. Accused persons also assaulted the complainant with hands, kicked the complainant and also gave life threat.

¶47

3.3 Based on the said complaint, police after registering the case, investigated the matter and filed

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3545 CRL.P No. 200781 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

charge sheet against the petitioners herein. After filing the charge sheet, learned Special Judge has taken cognizance of the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and he is proceedings with the case.

¶51

3.4 Said action of taking cognizance and proceeding with the criminal case is called in question in this petition.

¶52

Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the petition vehemently contended that when the police have dropped few of the accused persons while filing the charge sheet, especially when the complainant and others have specifically stated that all accused persons were present, learned Special Judge ignoring the same had taken cognizance against the petitioners and proceeding with the criminal case, which has resulted in miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the petition.

¶53

Per contra, learned High Court Government

¶54

Pleader for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for

¶55

6 - NC: 2025:KHC-K:3545 CRL.P No. 200781 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

respondent No.2/de-facto complainant support the order of Special Judge in taking cognizance and proceeding with criminal camel case.

¶58

Having heard the arguments of both sides, this

¶59

Court perused the material on record meticulously.

¶60

On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that in the charge sheet, there are material evidence, which would be prima facie enough to take cognizance, which has been rightly done by the learned Special Judge.

¶61

All the petitioners or anyone of them may file necessary application seeking discharge, if no material is found in the charge sheet, which would be sufficient enough to proceed under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

¶62