Allowed¶79

Sri Channakeshava @ Channakeshava Murthy H a v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Nov 2025CRL.P/3678/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: quashing of FIR; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; Section 528 BNSS; SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Section 3(1)(r)(s); offence on private property, not in public view; abuse of process of law; complaint arising from civil dispute; no evidentiary material; death of complainant; IPC Sections 504, 506, 323; Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru; CRL.P No. 3678 of 2024; Justice M.I. Arun; decided 12.11.2025; NC: 2025:KHC:46035.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Crime No.119/2024 pending against the petitioner on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru Rural District, quashed; pending I.As., if any, disposed of. ¶79

Sri Channakeshava @ Channakeshava Murthy H a Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Proceedings in Crime No.119/2024 pending against the petitioner on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru Rural District, quashed; pending I.As., if any, disposed of.

¶79

Issue for consideration

Whether the FIR in Crime No.119/2024 of Doddaballapura Rural Police and the proceedings arising therefrom ought to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +2 more

¶23

Court's answer

For the aforementioned reasons, under the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings against the petitioner in Crime No.119/2024 pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru Rural District, stand quashed.

¶77

Ratio / Principle

Perusal of the materials on record revealed that there is indeed a civil dispute between the petitioner and respondent no.2 which resulted in the instant complaint being lodged, and the complaint was not backed by any material having any evidentiary value.

¶72

Key takeaways

In the circumstances, the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would only be an abuse of process of law.ratio¶72

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Petition (S. 482 Cr.P.C.) - Quashing of FIR - Abuse of process. Petition sought quashing of FIR in Crime No.119/2024 of Doddaballapura Rural Police Station, registered on a complaint dated 07.04.2024 filed by respondent no.2, for offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r) & (s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and Sections 504, 506 and 323 IPC, pending before the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru Rural District. Petitioner pleaded (i) a pending civil dispute with the complainant as the true trigger for the complaint, (ii) that the SC/ST (POA) Act offence was admittedly alleged to have occurred on private property and not in a public place, and (iii) that respondent no.2 had subsequently died; the learned HCGP was not in a position to dispute the private-property/not-in-public-view aspect. Holding that the complaint flowed from the civil dispute and was not backed by any material having evidentiary value, the Court held that initiation of criminal proceedings would only be an abuse of process of law and quashed the proceedings in Crime No.119/2024. Petition allowed; pending I.As. disposed of. (M.I. Arun, J.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46035 CRL.P No. 3678 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 3678 OF 2024

¶7

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

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. CHANNAKESHAVA @ CHANNAKESHAVA MURTHY H.A. S/O NANJAPPA

¶10

AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS

¶11

RESIDING AT HADONAHALLI VILLAGE THUBAGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA H.V., ADVOCATE)

¶14

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY DODDABALLAPURA RURAL POLICE STATION DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE - 560 001.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:46035 CRL.P No. 3678 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

SRI. NARASIMHA MURTHY S/O LATE MUNISHAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT HADONAHALLI VILLAGE THUBAGERE HOBLI DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT-561 203.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. K.NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1)

¶23

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.119/2024 OF DODDABALLAPURA RURAL POLICE REGISTERED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(1)(r) & (s) OF SC/ST(POA) ACT AND SECTIONS 504, 506 AND 323 OF IPC LODGED AGAINST THIS PETITIONER ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE.

¶24

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

¶26

¶27

NC: 2025:KHC:46035 CRL.P No. 3678 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

On 07.04.2024, respondent no.2 had filed a complaint

¶31

against the petitioner and the same reads as under:

" gÀªÀjUÉ,

�ಾನ� ಆರ�ಕ�ೕ��ಕರು

�ಾ��ಾಂತರ��ೕ��ಾ�ೆ

�ೊಡ�ಬ�ಾ�ಪ�ರ ಾಲೂ"

#ೆಂಗಳ&ರು �ಾ�ಮ()ೆ*

gÀªÀjAzÀ,

,�ೕನರ-ಂಹಮೂ/0 s/o )ೇ1ಮು�2ಾಮಪ3 4ಾ5ೋನಹ6� �ಾ�ಮ , ತೂಬ�ೆ7ೆ 4ೋಬ6

¶39

�ೊಡ�ಬ�ಾ�ಪ�ರ ಾಲೂ"

¶40

�ಾನ�7ೇ

¶41

8ಷಯ :- ನನ; <ೕ)ೆ �ಾರ�ಾಂ/ಕ=ಾ> ಹ)ೆ*�ಾ? @ಾ/�ಂದBೆ �ಾ? Cೊ)ೆ #ೆದ�Cೆ 4ಾDರುವಬ�ೆF ದೂರು

¶42

GಾHI :- ಈ <ೕಲKಂಡ 8ಷಯCೆK ಸಂಬಂM-ದಂ ೆ ತಮN�* /6ಯ

¶43

ಪ?ಸುವ�ದು ಏBೆಂದ7ೆ , PBಾಂಕ :- 21/03/2024 ರಂದು ಸಂ@ೆ , ಸು�ಾರು 4

¶44

ಗಂQೆಯ <ೕ)ೆ ಸ�Rಾ> ಸಮಯ �ೊ/Sಲ* , ನಮN ಊ�ನ 4ಾ5ೋನಹ6�

¶45

�ಾ�ಮದ ಸಕ0U ಬ6Vಂದ ಮBೆ ಕ5ೆ�ೆ 4ೋಗು/SದುW ನನ;ನು; ಇYZ�ೆ [ಾ�ಕZ�

¶46

ಬ6ಕ7ೆದು 4ೋ>ಅ=ಾಚ� ಶಬWಗ6ಂದ�ಂPಸುತS , Cೈಗ6�ೆ ಕ[ಾಳCೆK ಒ5ೆದು .

¶47

Cಾ��ಂದ ಒದುW �ೊ5ೆ�ೆ ತ6� ಕIN@ಾ/ 4ೊ)ೆಯ ನನ; ಮಗBೆ ಎಂಬು�ಾ>

¶48

¶49

NC: 2025:KHC:46035 CRL.P No. 3678 of 2024

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

#ೈಯುತS ನಮN�ೇ �ಾ�ಮದ �=ಾ- Cೇಶವ ( ಉರುc ) ಚನ;Cೇಶವ ಎಂ#ಾತ [ಾ�ಣ #ೆದ�Cೆ ಅDರು ಾSBೆ . ಈ eಂ�ೆ ಸು�ಾರು 7-8 ವಷ0ಗಳ eಂ�ೆ Bಾನು ನಮN ಮBೆಯವರು ನಮN�ೆ ಸHಂತ ಜIೕನನು; ಸ=ೇ0 ನಂ 175 ರ�* ಎರಡು ಎಕ7ೆ ಜIೕನು ಚನ;Cೇಶವ ( ಉರುc ) Cೇಶವ ಎಂಬುವವ��ೆ �ಾ7ಾಟ �ಾ?�ೆWೕವ� ಒಟುZ ನಮN ಜIನು ಇದWದುW 3 ಎಕ7ೆ ನಮ�ೆ /6ಯದ 4ಾ�ೇ 4ೆಚುhವ�Rಾ> 1 ಎಕ7ೆ @ೆIೕನನು; ಅ>�<ಂ1 �(ಸZi �ಾ?Cೊಂ?ರು ಾSBೆ _._ ಓದು ಬರಹ /6ಯದ ನಮ�ೆ ಈ 7ೇ/ kಸPಂದ 1 ಎಕ7ೆ ಅ>�<ಂ1 �ಾ?-�ರುವ ಬ�ೆF Cೆಳ)ಾ> ನಮN <ೕ)ೆ ಈ eಂ�ೆಯು ಅ�ಾನುಷ=ಾ> ಹ)ೆ* �ಾ?ದW, Cೇಶವ kBೆ;ಯು ಸ4ಾ ಅ�ೇ CಾರಣPಂದ ಏCಾಏD ಕ7ೆದು ನನ; <ೕ)ೆ ಅ=ಾಚ� ಶಬWಗ6ಂದ �ಂP- �ಾರ�ಾಂ/ಕ ಹ)ೆ*

¶52

�ಾ?ರು ಾSBೆ <ಲKಂಡ ವ�ಕS ಚನ;Cೇಶವನ <ೕ)ೆ Cಾನೂನು 7ೇ/ ಕ�ಮ ಜರು>- ನನ�ೆ Cಾನೂನು 7ೇ/ Bಾ�ಯ ಒದ>- Cೊಡ#ೆCೆಂಡು Cೊರು ೆSೕBೆ . Bಾನು ಆಸ3 ೆ��ೆ �ಾಖ)ಾ> nD ೆo , ಪ5ೆದು ಈ Pನ��ೕ� �ಾ�ೆ�ೆ ಬಂದು ದೂರು �ೕ?ರು ೆSೕBೆ .

¶53

¢£ÁAPÀ: 07/04/2024 ಇಂ/ತಮN 82ಾHಸpಳ : �ೊಡ�ಬಳಪ�ರ ನರ-ಂಹಮೂ/0 9901037304

¶54

PBಾಂಕ : 07/04/2024 ರಂದು ಮ�ಾ�qಹ 03:00 P.M rRಾ0ದು �ಾ�ೆ�ೆ

¶55

4ಾಜ7ಾ>�ೕ?ದ�sತದೂರನು; ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ oÁ£Á ªÀÄÆ£ÀA 119/2024PÀ®A

¶56

¶57

NC: 2025:KHC:46035 CRL.P No. 3678 of 2024

¶58

HC-KAR

¶59

323, 504, 506 IPC R/w 3(1)( r )( s ) SC.ST POA Act 2015 jÃvÁå ಪ�ಕರಣ

¶60

�ಾಖ�-ರು ೆS .

¶61

Sd P.S.I"

¶62

Based on the aforementioned complaint, an FIR is registered in Crime no.119/2024 on the file of II Additional District & Sessions Court, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (for short 'SC/ST (POA) Act') and Sections 506, 504 and 323 of IPC.

¶63

The case of the petitioner is that, there is a civil dispute pending between petitioner and respondent no.2 which resulted in the aforementioned complaint being filed. It is submitted that it is a false and vexatious complaint.

¶64

It is also submitted that admittedly the offence under the SC/ST (POA) Act did not happen in a public place as per the complaint itself and it is alleged to have been taken place in a private property where no one else from the general public was present.

¶65

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46035 CRL.P No. 3678 of 2024

¶66

HC-KAR

¶67

It is also submitted that respondent no.2 has

¶68

subsequently died.

¶69

For the aforementioned reasons, it is prayed that the petition be allowed.

¶70

The learned High Court Government Pleader upon instructions prays for dismissal of the petition. However, he is not in a position to dispute the fact that the offence alleged under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act is alleged to have taken place on a private property and not in public view.

¶71

Perusal of the materials on record reveals that there is

¶72

indeed a civil dispute between petitioner and respondent no.2, which has resulted in the instant complaint being lodged against the petitioner herein by respondent no.2 and the same was not backed by any material having any evidentiary value. Under the circumstances, it has to be considered that the initiation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would only be an abuse of process of law.

¶73

¶74

NC: 2025:KHC:46035 CRL.P No. 3678 of 2024

¶75

HC-KAR

¶76

For the aforementioned reason, under the given

¶77

peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the proceedings against the petitioner in crime no.119/2024 pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru Rural District,

¶78

Bengaluru stands quashed.

¶79

The criminal petition stands allowed accordingly.

¶80

Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of.

¶81

Sd/(M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

¶82

PGG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Sri Channakeshava @ Channakeshava Murthy H a v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Channakeshava @ Channakeshava Murthy H a 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

P Manjunatha Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Mahadevaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Lokesh. v Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri C Laxmipathy Vs Sri S a Sujay

Smt Pushpavathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. Vedaraman Kailasam Vs M/S Sandur Fluid Controls Private Limited