Sri Sathish Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR (CRIME) NO.46/2024 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHMENT U/S 504, 324, 323, 506 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE 2^nd ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE KOLAR CASE REGISTERED BY KOLAR RURAL P.S., RESPONDENT NO.1.

¶24

IN CRL.P NO. 5810/2024 BETWEEN:

¶25

SRI. SATHISH .N S/O SRI. NANJUNDAPPA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT ABBANI VILLAGE HUTTURU HOBLI, KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-563103.

¶26

...PETITIONER

¶27

(BY SRI. RAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶28

AND:

¶29

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY KOLAR RURAL POLICE STATION KOLAR-563101. REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT COMPLEX BANGALORE-560 001.

¶30

SMT. NAGAMANI A.N W/O SHRIRAM AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT ABBANI VILLAGE HUTTURU HOBLI

¶31

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:33209 CRL.P No. 2526 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5810 of 2024

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

KOLAR TALUK KOLAR DISTRICT-5631023.

¶34

...RESPONDENTS

¶35

(BY SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶36

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C SC/ST 35/2023 SEC. 354A,(1)(ii), 504, 506, 509 OF IPC AND SEC.3 (1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT ON THE FILE OF THE 2ND ADDL.DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT KOLAR CASE REGISTERED BY KOLAR RURAL P.S. KOLAR.

¶37

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶38

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶39

ORAL ORDER

¶40

Crl.P.No.2526/2024 is filed by the accused seeking

¶41

quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No.46/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 323, 506 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the 1989 Act'). Similarly, Crl.P.No.5810/2024 is filed by the accused in respect of another case arising out of the same set of allegations made by the respondent no.2/Srirama, who is the de facto

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:33209 CRL.P No. 2526 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5810 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

complainant, wherein charge sheet has been filed in Spl.Case SC/ST No.35/2023 for offences punishable under Sections 354A(1)(ii), 504, 506, 509 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the 1989 Act.

¶45

The case of respondent No.2/Srirama is that on 28.01.2024 at about 8.00 a.m., while he was returning to his house, the accused, who came on a motorbike, abused him in filthy language, threatened him with dire consequences, and physically assaulted him, more particularly by kicking him. Based on this complaint, Crime No.46/2024 was registered against the petitioner.

¶46

Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in both the petitions, would contend that respondent No.2/Srirama, who is also the defendant in the civil suit filed by the petitioner, has grossly misused the provisions of the SC/ST Act by lodging false and frivolous complaints. He would submit that there is a clear pattern in which respondent No.2/Srirama has been filing

¶47

5 -

¶48

NC: 2025:KHC:33209 CRL.P No. 2526 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5810 of 2024

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

complaints year after year, all of which are identical in nature and are nothing but replicas of each other, with the sole intent of harassing the petitioner.

¶51

It is to be noted that respondent No.2/ Srirama

¶52

has not chosen to contest either of these petitions.

¶53

Per contra, learned HCGP would submit that the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1989 Act’) is a special legislation intended to protect members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from atrocities and discrimination. Once a complaint disclosing commission of an offence under the Act is lodged, the jurisdictional police are bound to register a case and conduct investigation. He would therefore contend that since the allegations prima facie attract the provisions of the 1989 Act, no indulgence can be granted by this Court at the stage of investigation or after filing of the charge sheet.

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:33209 CRL.P No. 2526 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5810 of 2024

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

It is further submitted that in

¶58

Crl.P.No.2526/2024, though a crime has been registered, this Court has stayed further investigation, whereas in the connected petition, Crl.P.No.5810/2024, investigation has

¶59

culminated in filing of a charge sheet. Hence, the petitioner, if aggrieved, must face a full-fledged trial, and therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in either of the petitions.

¶60

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP, this Court finds it necessary to examine the tenor and nature of allegations made by respondent No.2/Srirama and his wife and brother in successive complaints filed during the last four years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the petitioner is already facing trial in two other identical cases registered in the preceding years.

¶61

Before adverting to the allegations in the present complaint, it is necessary to notice that the

¶62

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:33209 CRL.P No. 2526 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5810 of 2024

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

mother of the petitioner has instituted O.S.No.561/2023 seeking protection of her possession over the suit schedule property. In the said suit, she has specifically alleged that respondent No.2/Srirama and his men attempted to interfere with her peaceful possession. For better appreciation, this Court deems it appropriate to extract paragraphs 5 to 8 of the plaint, which read as under:

¶65

"5. It is submitted that, the defendants are nowhere related to the suit schedule property and they are backed by unruly elements, making hectic attempts to trespass and trying to construct the house on the northern side vacant property of the suit schedule property by closing the road, with an intention to cause injustice to the plaintiff and unnecessarily disturbing the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the plaintiff. The defendants have no manner of right, title and interest much less possession over the suit schedule property or the northern side road. The local politicians are joined hands with the defendants, who are inimical towards the plaintiff are instigating the defendants, to trespass and dig foundation on the northern side of the suit schedule property. Hence, the plaintiff has got right to protect her possession over the suit schedule property. The plaintiff is aged person and law abiding citizen, as such it is not possible for the plaintiff to resist the illegal activities of

¶66

8 -

¶67

NC: 2025:KHC:33209 CRL.P No. 2526 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5810 of 2024

¶68

HC-KAR

¶69

the defendants. In fact on 05.10.2023 the defendants with their gang mans by trying to trespass and dig the foundation on the northern side of the suit schedule property by denying the title of the plaintiff by using criminal force, on the basis of concocted and colorable documents. The plaintiff has prevented the illegal acts of the defendants with great difficulty, now, as the defendants are persisting of their illegal activities, the plaintiffs cannot prevent the same without the aid of this Hon'ble court because the defendants are more powerful persons in the locality. In this regard on 05.10.2023 the plaintiff has lodged a police complaint against the defendants to the Kolar Rural Police, Kolar, but the said police by colluding with the defendants have not taken any action against the defendants in accordance with law. Even earlier also the defendants and their family members are one or the other reason have obstructing the possession of plaintiff. Hence, this suit for permanent injunction.

¶70

6. It is submitted that, the defendants are strangers and have no manner of right, title, interest or possession over the suit schedule property in any manner. The Defendants have no right to interfere with the suit schedule property nor trespass on the northern side of the suit schedule property and there is no any property belongs to defendants at any point of time.

¶71

7. It is submitted that, the plaintiff is unable to produce all the relevant documents due to her old age and personal inconvenience and the matter is urgency,

¶72

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:33209 CRL.P No. 2526 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5810 of 2024

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

as such the plaintiff seek the permission of this Hon'ble court to produce the relevant documents in later stage.

¶75

8. The cause of action for the suit arose on 15.09.2023, when the defendants and their gang man tried to interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful possession over the suit schedule property, at Abbani village, Huthur hobli, Kolar taluk, within the jurisdiction this Hon'ble court."

¶76

9. Upon institution of the suit, the present

¶77

petitioner filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking an order of temporary injunction. Respondent No.2/ Srirama has been arrayed as defendant No.1 in the said suit. The trial Court, after hearing the parties, granted an order of injunction against respondent No.2/Srirama. Since the operative portion of the said interim order has a direct bearing on the present proceedings, it is considered appropriate to extract the same for ready reference, which reads as under:

¶78

"1. IA No.2 is hereby allowed. The notice of IA No.1 to the defendant No.1 is hereby dispensed with for passing orders on IA No.1. An ad interim

¶79

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:33209 CRL.P No. 2526 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5810 of 2024

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

exparte temporary injunction is issued in favour of the Plaintiff.

¶82

2. The defendants are hereby restrained from laying any foundation or raising the construction of any sought in the suit property till the next date of hearing.

¶83

3. The Plaintiff is directed to comply with the proviso to Rule 3 of Order 39 of CPC forthwith.

¶84

4. Office to issue certified copy of this order only after being satisfied that sufficient process for service of summons to all defendants has been paid and upon receipt of an affidavit from the Plaintiff regarding compliance of proviso to Order 39 Rule 3.

¶85

5. Office to issue suit summons as well as emergent notice on IA No.1 to the defendants, if PF paid.

¶86

Call on 02.11.2023 for the appearance of defendants."

¶87

The pleadings as culled out from the plaint, coupled with the interim order granted by the trial Court, clearly establish that respondent No.2/Srirama, along with

¶88

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:33209 CRL.P No. 2526 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5810 of 2024

¶89

HC-KAR

¶90

the other defendants, has been specifically restrained from interfering with the petitioner’s peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property. The petitioner has consistently asserted lawful possession over the said property, and the subsistence of the injunction order fortifies such assertion. In the backdrop of this civil dispute, where a competent Civil Court has granted an injunction against respondent No.2/Srirama, it becomes imperative for this Court to carefully scrutinize the tenor and timing of the criminal complaints lodged by respondent No.2/Srirama and his family members.

¶91

This Court is particularly required to examine whether the extraordinary provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, have been invoked by respondent No.2/Srirama as a tool of misuse, with the ulterior motive of harassing the petitioner and, more significantly, to circumvent or neutralize the subsisting order of injunction passed by the Civil Court. The issue before this Court, therefore, is not

¶92

12 -

¶93

NC: 2025:KHC:33209 CRL.P No. 2526 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5810 of 2024

¶94

HC-KAR

¶95

merely the maintainability of the complaints but also whether the criminal process has been set in motion as an abuse of the process of law to settle a civil dispute.

¶96

Turning now to the FIRs forming the subject matter of Crl.P.No.2526/2024, this Court has meticulously examined the allegations contained therein. It is pertinent to note that as early as in 2021, a crime was registered against the petitioner at the instance of one Manjunath, who happens to be the brother of the present complainant – respondent No.2/ Srirama. The complaint lodged in Crime No.357/2021 contains allegations strikingly similar in tenor and substance to those now put forth by respondent No.2/Srirama.

¶97

For the sake of completeness and to appreciate the recurring pattern of allegations, this Court deems it appropriate to extract the relevant averments made in the complaint/FIR No.357/2021, which read as under:

¶98

13 -

¶99

NC: 2025:KHC:33209 CRL.P No. 2526 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5810 of 2024

¶100

HC-KAR

¶101

" �.03/09/2021 ರಂದು ಎ�.ಎ�.ಆ� ಆಸ��ೆ��ಂದ ಬಂದ �ಾ��ಯ �ೕ�ೆ�ೆ �ೇ� �ೊಟು �ಾ!ಾಳ#$ನ &ೇ'�ೆಯನು( ಪ*ೆದು +ಾ,ೆ�ೆ �ಂ�ರು- ಬಂದು ಮ/ಾ0ಹ( 12:45 ಗಂ3ೆಯ45 ಪ�ಕರಣ 8ಾಖ4:ದ;ರ <ಾ�ಾಂಶ>ೇ?ೆಂದ�ೆ �ಾ!ಾಳ# �ಾ�ಮದ ಸ�ೕ@ A� ನಂಜುಂಡಪ� ರವರ ಮ?ೆಯ ಪಕEದ45 ತಮG HಾಬತುI J>ೇಶನ$ದು; ಸದK J>ೇಶನದ45 Lಾಯ &ಾಕಲು ಮುಂ8ಾ8ಾಗ ಸ�ೕN ರವರು ತಕ�ಾರು �ಾOರು�ಾI�ೆ , ನಂತರ �ಾ�ಮದ45 �ಾPೕ ಪಂQಾ�I, �ಾO ನಂತರ Lಾಯ &ಾRದು;, Rೕಳ# Sಾ�ಯವನು ಮ?ೆಯ ಪಕEದ45 ಬರು�I8ಾ;?ೆಂಬುವTದನು( ಸ�ಸ8ೇ ಸ�ೕN ರವರು ತನ( �ೕUೆ 8ೆVೕಷ HೆXೆ:�ೊಂOರು�ಾI?ೆ .

¶102

�ೕ-ದ;45 �.02/09/2021 ರಂದು �ಾ�� ಸು�ಾರು 7:30 ಗಂ3ೆಯ45 �ಾನು ತಮG ಮ?ೆಯ ಬ' &ೋ8ಾಗ ತನ(ನು( ?ೋO ಸ�ೕN ರವರು ಅ>ಾಚ0 ಶಬ;ಗ'ಂದ Hೈ8ಾಡು�Iದ;ನು. �ಾನು ಆತನನು( ಕುKತು !ಾ�ೇ ಸ�ೕN �ೆ Hೈಯು�I�;ೕ!ಾ ಎಂತ �ೇ'8ಾಗ ಸ�ೕN ರವರು ಏ�ಾಏR 8ೊ,ೆ]�ಂದ ತನ( ಹ,ೆ�ೆ &ೊ*ೆದು ರಕI�ಾಯವನು(ಂಟು �ಾOರು�ಾI?ೆ . �ಾನು Sೋ�ಾRರುಚು�ೊಳ#^ವಷ ರ45 ?ಾ�ೇN A� >ೆಂಕಟ�ಾಮಪ� ಮತುI �ಾಧಮG �ೋಂ ಆಂಜನಪ� ರವರು ಜಗಳ AO: ತನ(ನು( ಉಪಚK:ದರು. ಸ�ೕN ರವರು ತನ(ನು( ಕುKತು ಏ ವಡa ನನ( ಮಗ?ೇ, ಇನು( ಮುಂ8ೆ ನಮG ತಂ3ೆ�ೆ ಬಂದ�ೆ Pೕವ ಸ�ತ AಡುವT�ಲ5>ೆಂದು Lಾ�ಣ HೆದK�ೆ &ಾRರು�ಾI?ೆ . ಸ�ೕN ರವರು ಒಕE4ಗ ಜ?ಾಂದವ?ಾ-ದು;, ತಮGನು( Rೕಳ# Sಾ�ಯವ�ೆಂದು ಆ�ಾಗ Hೈಯು�Iರು�ಾI?ೆ . ಆದ;Kಂದ �ೕಲEಂಡ ಸ�ೕN ರವರ $ರುದd ಸೂಕI ಕ�ಮ ಜರು-ಸಲು �ೋKದು;, ತನ�ೆ ರಕI<ಾ�ವ

¶103

14 -

¶104

NC: 2025:KHC:33209 CRL.P No. 2526 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5810 of 2024

¶105

HC-KAR

¶106

Sಾ:I!ಾ-ದ;Kಂದ �ಾ�� ಎ�.ಎ�.ಆ� ಆಸ��ೆ�ಯ45, ಬಂದು eR�ೆf ಪ*ೆಯು�IರುವT8ಾ- ದೂರು."

¶107

In the year 2022, yet another complaint came

¶108

to be lodged, this time by one Nagamani, who is none other than the wife of respondent No.2/complainant in Crl.P.No.2526/2024 (Srirama). Based on her complaint, a

¶109

crime was registered in FIR No.518/2022. It is not in dispute that investigation in the said case culminated in filing of a charge sheet, and the petitioner is presently facing trial before the jurisdictional Court in respect of the said offence.

¶110

Significantly, this was not an isolated incident. In the very next year, i.e., in 2023, another complaint was once again lodged at the instance of the very same Nagamani, which resulted in registration of FIR No.389/2023. The nature of allegations in this complaint also bear a striking resemblance to the previous accusations levelled by respondent No.2/Srirama and his

¶111

15 - NC: 2025:KHC:33209 CRL.P No. 2526 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5810 of 2024

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

family members. In this case as well, the Investigating Officer, after completion of investigation, has filed a charge sheet, and the matter has been taken cognizance of by the Special Court, where it is now numbered as Spl.Case SC/ST No.35/2023.

¶114

A perusal of the sequence of events would thus indicate that year after year, complaints are being lodged alternately by respondent No.2/Srirama and his immediate family members on allegations that are substantially identical in tenor. The recurrence of such complaints, despite the pendency of a civil suit in which an injunction order operates against respondent No.2/Srirama, lends credence to the contention of the petitioner that the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 are being invoked as a tool to pressurize and harass him, rather than for bona fide redressal of grievances.

¶115

For a proper appreciation of the allegations said

¶116

to have been made in the third complaint, this Court

¶117

16 -

¶118

NC: 2025:KHC:33209 CRL.P No. 2526 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5810 of 2024

¶119

HC-KAR

¶120

deems it appropriate to extract the averments made in FIR No.389/2023, which read as under:

¶121

" �?ಾಂಕ:-05.08.2023 ರಂದು Hೆ'�ೆg, 10.30 ಗಂ3ೆ�ೆ h!ಾij8ಾರರು +ಾ,ೆ�ೆ &ಾಜ�ಾJೕOದ ದೂKನ <ಾ�ಾಂಶ>ೇ?ೆಂದ�ೆ �ಾನು, ತನ( �ಾ� ತುಳಸಮG �ೋಂ Uೇm ?ಾ�ಾಯಣ<ಾVn, ತನ( ಗಂಡ o�ೕ�ಾp A� ಗಂಗುಲಪ�ರವರು &ಾಗೂ ತನ( ಮಕEXಾದ ಸು�ಾರು 17 ವಷi ವಯ:fನ <ೋJ�ಾ, 15 ವಷiದ ಹಂ:ಕ, 11 ವ�ಷದ ಹqiಕರವರು �ೋUಾರ �ಾಲೂಕು ಅಬrs �ಾ�ಮದ45 >ಾಸ$ರು�ೆIೕ>ೆ. ತಮG ಮ?ೆಯ ಸnೕಪ ವಕE4ಗ ಜ?ಾಂಗದ ಸ�ೕN A� ನಂಜುಂಡಪ�ರವರು >ಾಸ$ರು�ಾI�ೆ , ತಮG ಮ?ೆ ಸnೕಪ �ಾವT &ೊಸ8ಾ- Lಾಯ &ಾRರುವ uಾ4 <ೈಟು ಇದು; ಸ�ೕN ರವರ ಮ?ೆಯ �ೕ4ನ Jೕರು ತಮG <ೈ�ನ45 ಮXೆ ಬಂ8ಾಗ ಬರು�IರುತI8ೆ . ಅಲ58ೇ Hೇ�ೆಂತUೇ ತಮ�ೆ �ೊಂದ�ೆ �ಾಡುವ ಉ8ೆ;ೕಶ�ಂದ ಅವರ ಮ?ೆಯ �ೕUೆ ಮೂತ� �ಾಡು>ಾಗ ತಮ�ೆ ಅಸಹ0>ಾಗುವ Kೕ�ಯ45 ವ�iಸುವTದು �ಾಡು�Iರು�ಾI�ೆ . ಈ �ಂ8ೆ ಸ&ಾ ಇ8ೇ $Qಾರದ45 2 �ಾK ದೂರುಗಳ# JೕOದು; ಸ�ೕN ರವರ �ೕUೆ �ೇಸುಗಳ# ಸ&ಾ 8ಾಖUಾ-ರುತI>ೆ . �?ಾಂಕ: 04/08/2023 ರಂದು �ಾ�� ಸು�ಾರು 8-30 ಗಂ3ೆಯ45 �ಾನು �ೋUಾರದ ಎ�ಎ�.ಆ� ಆಸ��ೆ��ಂದ �ೆಲಸ ಮು-:�ೊಂಡು ಅಬrs �ಾ�ಮದ ಬ� JUಾ;ಣದ ಕ*ೆ�ಂದ ತಮG ಮ?ೆ�ೆ &ೋಗಲು ರ<ೆIಯ45 &ೋಗು�I8ಾ;ಗ ತನ(ನು( ?ೋOದ �ೕಲEಂಡ ಸ�ೕN ರವರು ತನ(ನು( ಕುKತು ಏ ಸೂXೆ ಎ45�ೆ &ೋ-8ೆ; JಮGಮGನ 8ೆಂಗ �ೋ$ Sಾ� ಮುಂ*ೆ ಎಂದು ಅ>ಾ±Àé ಶಬ;ಗ'ಂದ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÄÝ Sಾ� Jಂದ?ೆ �ಾO ತನ( �ೈ �Oದು ಎXೆ8ಾOರು�ಾI?ೆ �ಾನು ಅವJಂದ ತh�:�ೊಳ^ಲು ಪ�ಯ�(:ದರೂ ತನ(ನು( Aಡ8ೇ

¶122

17 -

¶123

NC: 2025:KHC:33209 CRL.P No. 2526 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5810 of 2024

¶124

HC-KAR

¶125

ತನ( uಾಸ- ಅಂ�ಾಂಗಳನು( ಮು� ತನ�ೆ �ಾನಭಂಗವನು(ಂಟು �ಾಡುವ Kೕ�ಯ45 ವ�i:ರು�ಾI�ೆ . ಆ�ಾಗ ತನ( ಅಕEಂ��ಾದ ಮಂಗಮG �ೋಂ >ೆಂಕಟ�ಾಮಪ�, ಮಂಗಮG <ೊ<ೆ ಮಂಜುXಾ ರವರು ಸ&ಾ <ಾ(ನ �ಾಡುವ Sಾಗದ45 &ೋ- ಇಣR ?ೋಡುವTದು ತಮ�ೆ �ೊಂದ�ೆ �ಾಡುವTದು �ಾಡು�Iರು�ಾI?ೆ . ಮಂಜುXಾ ರವರನು( ಕುKತು ತನ( ಬ' ಬರು�I!ಾ ಇಲ5 ಅಂದ�ೆ JಮG ಮ?ೆ�ೆ ?ಾ?ೇ ಬರUಾ ಎಂಬು8ಾ- �ಂ:ಸು�Iರು�ಾI?ೆ . ತನ�ೆ ಆ�ಾಗ ಸ�ೕಶ ರವರು Lಾ�ಣHೆದK�ೆ ಸ&ಾ &ಾಕು�Iರು�ಾI�ೆ . ಆದ;Kಂದ ತನ�ೆ Sಾ�Jಂದ?ೆ �ಾO �ಾನಭಂಗವನು(ಂಟು �ಾOರುವ ಸವsೕiಯ ಜ?ಾಂಗದ ಸ�ೕN A� ನಂಜುಂಡಪ�ರವರ �ೕUೆ �ಾನೂನು ಕ�ಮ ಜರು-ಸಲು �ೋKದರ �ೕ�ೆ�ೆ ಪ�ಕರಣವನು( 8ಾಖ4ಸUಾ-8ೆ ."

¶126

The fourth FIR is again registered by Shreerama

¶127

and the same is registered in Crime No.46/2024. The allegations in the FIR/complaint are extracted which reads as under:

¶128

"�?ಾಂಕ:-29/01/2024 ರಂದು h!ಾiದು8ಾರರು +ಾ,ೆ�ೆ ಸಂSೆ 07.00 ಗಂ3ೆ�ೆ &ಾಜ�ಾ- JೕOದ ದೂರನು( :VೕಕK: 8ಾಖ4:ದರ ಪ�ಕರಣದ <ಾ�ಾಂಶ>ೇ?ೆಂದ�ೆ , �ಾನು ಅಬrs �ಾ�ಮದ45 >ಾಸ$ರು�ೆIೕ?ೆ . ತಮG ಮ?ೆ ಸnೕಪ ವಕE4ಗ ಜ?ಾಂಗದ ಸ�ೕಶ A� ನಂಜುಂಡಪ�ರವರ ಮ?ೆ ಇರು�ೆI. �?ಾಂಕ:28/01/2024 ರಂದು Hೆಳ�ೆg, 8-00 ಗಂ3ೆಯ45 ಕುರುಬರ 8ೇವ<ಾxನದ ಬ' ಶುದd �ಾಡು�Iದ; Sಾಗ�ೆE &ೋ- ಸಣ] �ೆ�ೆಯ45

¶129

18 -

¶130

NC: 2025:KHC:33209 CRL.P No. 2526 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5810 of 2024

¶131

HC-KAR

¶132

ರ<ೆIಯ45 ತಮG ಮ?ೆ ಕೆ�ೆ ನೆದು�ೊಂಡು ಬರಲು ಬರು�I8ಾ;ಗ ತಮG �ಾ�ಮದ ಕೆ�ಂದ ತನ�ೆ ಎದು�ಾ- �Vಚಕ� >ಾಹನದ45 ಬರು�Iದ; ತಮG ಪಕEದ ಮ?ೆಯ >ಾ: ವಕE4ಗ ಜ?ಾಂಗದ ಸ�ೕN A� ನಂಜುಂಡಪ�ರವರು ತನ(ನು( ?ೋO ಏ?ೋ ನನ( ಮಗ?ೇ ಈ ಕೆ�ಂದ ಬರು�I�;ೕ!ಾ Jನ( ಅಮGನ 8ೆಂಗ, ನನ( �ೕUೆ Jೕನು ಎಷು �ೇಸು �ೊಡು�Iೕ�ೋ �ೊO, ನನ( yಾಟ RತುI�ೊಳ^�ೆE ಆಗಲ5., Jೕನು ಇದುವ�ೆಗೂ ಎಷು �ೇಸು �ೊ� �;ೕK ನನ(ನು( ಏನು �ಾಡ4�ೆE ಆಗ4ಲ5 ?ಾನು Hೇz �ೕUೆ ಬಂದು Aಡು�ೆIೕ?ೆಂದು Jನ( ಅಮGನ ವಡaರ Sಾ�?ೇ 8ೆಂಗ JಮG ಕುಟುಂಬದವರನು( Jನ( &ೆಂಡ�ಯನು( <ಾ�: &ಾಕು�ೆIೕ?ೆ JಮG ಕುಟುಂಬದ45 ಒಬrರನು( AಡುವT�ಲ5>ೆಂದು Lಾ�ಣHೆದK�ೆ &ಾRದು;, ಅ45{ೕ ಇದ; ಕಲು5 �ೆ�ೆದು ಎಡಗೆ ಕ�I�ೆ , HೆJ(�ೆ ºÉÆqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛ£É. ಬಲಗೆ <ೊಂಟ�ೆE �ಾ4Jಂದ ಒ�;ರು�ಾI?ೆ . ಈ ಗUಾ3ೆಯನು( ತನ�ೆ �ಾವ?ಾದ >ೆಂಕಟರವಣಪ�ರವರು ?ೋOರು�ಾI�ೆ . vÀ£À�ೆ Sಾ� Jಂದ?ೆ �ಾO ಕಲು5 Jಂದ &ೊ*ೆದು Lಾ�ಣHೆದK�ೆ &ಾRರುವ ವಕE4ಗ ಜ?ಾಂಗದ ಸ�ೕN A� ನಂಜುಂಡ|ಪ ಎಂಬುವರ �ೕUೆ �ಾನೂನು ಕ�ಮ ಜgÀÄ-ಸಲು �ೋKದರ �ೕ�ೆ�ೆ ಪ�ಕರಣವನು( 8ಾಖ4ಸUಾ-8ೆ ."

¶133

A close examination of the complaints extracted

¶134

hereinabove would reveal that they are, in substance, verbatim repetitions of each other, based on an identical factual matrix with only minor variations in narration. Out of the four complaints, one has been lodged by Manjunath, one by Shreerama, and two by Nagamani.

¶135

19 -

¶136

NC: 2025:KHC:33209 CRL.P No. 2526 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5810 of 2024

¶137

HC-KAR

¶138

It is not in dispute that Shreerama and Nagamani are husband and wife, while Manjunath is the brother of Shreerama. Thus, all the complainants emanate from the same family, thereby clearly suggesting a concerted and sustained attempt by the family members to set the criminal law in motion repeatedly against the petitioner.

¶139

It is the categorical contention of the petitioner that the complainants, acting in concert, have repeatedly misused the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, solely to harass and intimidate him by filing multiple complaints on identical allegations. This assertion stands fortified by the undisputed fact that four FIRs have been registered between 2021 and 2024 on the basis of nearidentical allegations. The records also disclose the existence of civil litigation between the parties, wherein the petitioner, being the plaintiff, has secured an interim injunction order against respondent No.2/ Srirama, which has been extracted supra. The petitioner is already facing

¶140

20 - NC: 2025:KHC:33209 CRL.P No. 2526 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5810 of 2024

¶141

HC-KAR

¶142

trial in respect of the offences alleged in FIR No.357/2021 and FIR No.518/2022, both of which have culminated in the filing of charge sheets. Notwithstanding the pendency of these criminal proceedings, two fresh FIRs came to be registered in 2023 and 2024, again on the same set of facts.

¶143

On a meticulous examination of the present two complaints, this Court finds that there is neither fresh material nor any independent corroboration to justify successive prosecutions. The allegations are nothing but a reproduction of the earlier complaints. This Court is, therefore, prima facie satisfied that the provisions of the 1989 Act are being misused by respondent No.2/ Srirama and his family members. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of judgments, has categorically held that while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.,

¶144

the High Court is not only empowered but duty-bound to prevent abuse of the process of law and to secure the

¶145

21 -

¶146

NC: 2025:KHC:33209 CRL.P No. 2526 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5810 of 2024

¶147

HC-KAR

¶148

ends of justice, especially where penal provisions are

¶149

employed as a weapon of personal vendetta.

¶150

It is well settled that the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, is a piece of beneficial and welfare legislation, enacted with the avowed object of protecting members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from atrocities, discrimination, and indignities historically inflicted upon them. The enactment is intended to ensure that vulnerable sections of society can live with dignity and without fear. However, the salutary object of this welfare legislation cannot be permitted to be diluted or defeated by allowing its provisions to be invoked for collateral purposes such as settling personal disputes, exerting pressure in civil litigation, or intimidating opponents. When the very protection meant for the oppressed is sought to be weaponized for oppression, it strikes at the foundation of the statute itself.

¶151

22 - NC: 2025:KHC:33209 CRL.P No. 2526 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5810 of 2024

¶152

HC-KAR

¶153

In the case on hand, the allegations are

¶154

repetitive and unsupported by fresh material, and the petitioner is already facing trial for identical charges in two previous cases. Continuation of further prosecution based on subsequent complaints would therefore not only be oppressive but would also fall foul of the constitutional guarantee of a fair trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. This Court is more than satisfied that the successive prosecutions are nothing but an attempt to intimidate the petitioner, who is legitimately prosecuting his civil suit in which an interim injunction has been granted in his favour. It is also pertinent to note that the said injunction order remains unchallenged by respondent No.2/ Srirama, thereby reinforcing the inference of mala fides behind the subsequent complaints.

¶155

Having regard to the pattern of repeated filing of complaints year after year, between 2021 and 2024, with substantially identical allegations, this Court is of the considered opinion that the initiation of successive criminal

¶156

23 - NC: 2025:KHC:33209 CRL.P No. 2526 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5810 of 2024

¶157

HC-KAR

¶158

proceedings reflects a malicious and motivated attempt to

¶159

harass the petitioner by abusing the process of law, particularly by invoking the stringent provisions of the 1989 Act. The invocation of a beneficial legislation for collateral purposes not only undermines its true object of protecting the oppressed but also trivializes the real grievances of genuine victims belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. In these circumstances, and in light of the injunction already granted in favour of the petitioner, which has remained unassailed, this Court is firmly of the view that the present two criminal proceedings cannot be permitted to continue and deserve to be quashed.

¶160

Accordingly, this Court proceeds to pass the

¶161

following:

¶162

ORDER

¶163

(i) The petitions are allowed ;

¶164

(ii) The proceedings in Crime No.46/2024,

¶165

registered for the offences punishable under Sections

¶166

24 -

¶167

NC: 2025:KHC:33209 CRL.P No. 2526 of 2024 C/W CRL.P No. 5810 of 2024

¶168

HC-KAR

¶169

504, 324, 323, 506 of the IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, as well as the proceedings in Spl.Case SC/ST No.35/2023, arising out of FIR No.389/2023, pending on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, for the offences punishable under Sections 354A(1)(ii), 504, 506, 509 of the IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), and 3(2)(va) of the said Act, are hereby quashed.

¶170

Sd/(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶171

CA

¶172

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Sri Sathish v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Sathish v. 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

Caroline Kasper Vs State of Karnataka

M/S Galaxy Fashion Showroom Vs Sri Umesh G B

Khalid Ur Rehman Alias Khalid Vs State of Karnataka

Sri K S Samiulla Vs State by Hulimavu Ps

Sridhara Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Damodar Shenoy Vs M/S Gurupur Narasimha Hanumanth Kini @