Dismissed¶90

Sri Sangamesh Meti v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Aug 2025CRL.P/8095/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing petition; Section 482 Cr.P.C.; charge sheet; strong prima facie case; disputed facts cannot be decided under Section 482; FIR not an encyclopedia of prosecution case; SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act Sections 3(1)(r), (s), (w)(1), 3(2)(va); IPC Sections 143, 341, 323, 504, 506, 114 r/w 149; political vengeance; KEB employees' union election; caste abuse and assault; Gundlupete Police Station Crime No.257/2020; Principal District and Sessions Judge Chamarajanagar; Karnataka High Court; Justice J.M.Khazi; petitions rejected (2025).

What did the court decide?

None; both petitions rejected, with a direction to the Registry to send a copy of the order to the trial Court through email. ¶90

Sri Sangamesh Meti Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; both petitions rejected, with a direction to the Registry to send a copy of the order to the trial Court through email.

¶90

Issue for consideration

Whether the proceedings against the petitioners (accused Nos.3 to 5) in Charge Sheet No.12/2020 (Cr.No.257/2020 of Gundlupete PS), pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, for offences under Sections 143, 341, 323, 504, 506, 114 r/w 149 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r),(s),(w)(1), 3(2)(va) SC/ST (POA) Act, are liable to be quashed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. +1 more

¶51

Court's answer

A first information report cannot be expected to be an encyclopedia of the entire case of the prosecution; during their statements the witnesses have clearly spoken to the presence of accused No.5.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

It is for the prosecution to establish the allegations at the full-fledged trial.

¶13

Key takeaways

The charge sheet filed after detailed investigation makes out a strong prima facie case to proceed against all the persons including the petitioners.ratio¶13
Disputed facts cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Connected Criminal Petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. by accused Nos.3 to 5 (Sangamesh Meti, Rajashekar and Sharanabasappa Chinnapur), employees of KEB, seeking quashing of proceedings in Charge Sheet No.12/2020 (Crime No.257/2020) of Gundlupete Police Station, pending before the Principal District and Sessions Judge, Chamarajanagar, for offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323, 504, 506, 114 r/w Section 149 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), (s), (w)(1), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. The case arose out of a quarrel on 01.08.2020 within the compound of the office of the Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical), following the KEB employees' union election of 29.07.2020 in which accused No.5 defeated the complainant; the petitioners alleged false implication out of political vengeance. Holding: an FIR cannot be expected to be an encyclopedia of the entire case of the prosecution, and the witnesses' statements clearly speak to the presence of accused No.5; it is for the prosecution to establish the allegations at the full-fledged trial; the charge sheet filed after detailed investigation makes out a strong prima facie case against all the accused including the petitioners; and disputed facts cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. Petitions rejected.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:33869 CRL.P No. 8095 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 7617 of 2020

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8095 OF 2020

¶8

(482(Cr.PC) / 528(BNSS)) C/W CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7617 OF 2020

¶9

IN CRL.P No. 8095/2020

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

SRI SANGAMESH METI

¶12

S/O ADIVEPPA

¶13

AGED 23 YEARS,

¶14

W/AT KEB, GUNDLUPET BRANCH GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT-571111

¶15

SRI.RAJASHEKAR

¶16

Digitally signed by REKHA R Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶17

S/O GOVINDASHETTY, AGED 29 YEARS, W/AT KEB, GUNDLUPET BRANCH, GUNDLUPET TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA-571 111.

¶18

…PETITIONERS

¶19

(BY SRI. SADASHIVAIAH K G, ADVOCATE)

¶20

AND:

¶21

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY GUNDLUPET POLICE STATION CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGARA-571 111.

¶22

¶23

NC: 2025:KHC:33869 CRL.P No. 8095 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 7617 of 2020

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

B.RAVI KUMAR

¶26

S/O CHIKKAMADAIAH AGED 46 YEARS, WARD NO.20, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE GUNDLUPET TOWN CHAMARAJANAGARA-571 111.

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SMT.N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.S.VICTOR MANOHARAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶29

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN CHARGE SHEET NO.12/2020 (CRIME NO.257/2020) FILED BY THE 1^st RESPONDENT, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGARA.

¶30

IN CRL.P NO. 7617/2020

¶31

BETWEEN:

¶32

SHARANABASAPPA CHINNAPUR S/O AMARAPURA,

¶33

AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, WORKING AT KEB, BEGURU BRANCH, GUNDLUPET TOWN AND TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT-571111

¶34

...PETITIONER

¶35

(BY SRI. SADASHIVAIAH K G, ADVOCATE)

¶36

AND:

¶37

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶38

BY GUNDLUPET POLICE STATION CHAMARAJANAGAR DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGAR -571111 REP BY SPP, HCK, BANGALORE-01

¶39

¶40

NC: 2025:KHC:33869 CRL.P No. 8095 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 7617 of 2020

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

RAVI KUMAR

¶43

S/O CHIKKAMADAIAH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WARD NO 20, AMBEDKAR CIRCLE, GUNDLUPET TOWN, CHAMARAJANAGARA 571111

¶44

...RESPONDENTS

¶45

(BY SMT.N.ANITHA GIRISH, HCGP FOR R1;

¶46

SRI.S.VICTOR MANOHARAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶47

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.129/2020 (CR.NO.257/2020) FILED BY THE 1^st RESPONDENT, WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, CHAMARAJANAGARA DISTRICT, CHAMARAJANAGARA.

¶48

THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶49

ORAL ORDER

¶50

Petitioners who are arraigned as accused Nos.3 to 5

¶51

have filed these petitions under the Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the proceeding initiated against them in Charge sheet No.12/2020 (Cr.No.257/2020 of Gundlupete PS) on the file of principal District and Sessions Judge Chamarajanagar, for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 341, 323, 504, 506, 114, r/w Section 149 of

¶52

¶53

NC: 2025:KHC:33869 CRL.P No. 8095 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 7617 of 2020

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

IPC and Section 3(1)(r),(s), (w)(1), 3(2)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶56

For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to by their rank before the trial Court.

¶57

In support of the petition, the petitioners have contended that the investigating officer has failed to note that there was political vengeance between complainant and petitioners, as petitioner/accused No.5 has succeeded in the election conducted on 29.07.2020 against the complainant. Therefore, complainant had set up his own people to file false case against the petitioners and others, by misusing the provisions of SC/ST(POA) Act. The mere perusal of the complaint clearly indicates that petitioner/accused No.5 was not present when the alleged incident took place. But in the charge sheet, it is stated he was present and instigated the other accused to quarrel with the complainant and assault him.

¶58

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:33869 CRL.P No. 8095 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 7617 of 2020

¶60

HC-KAR

¶61

In order to improve the case of the prosecution, these allegations are added. As an afterthought, the statements of Venkatesh and Shyla were concocted to implicate accused No.5. When the incident took place, it was dark and not possible to identify the accused. In fact, it is stated that complainant has taken treatment on 05.08.2020 which clearly indicates that the certificate is concocted and the certificate does not indicate that complainant Venkatesh and Shyla have suffered any injuries, Cyclostyle statements are concocted to improve the case of the prosecution. The continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence the petitions.

¶62

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader representing respondent No.1/State and learned counsel representing respondent No.2/complainant would submit that complainant and accused are employees of KEB. Their residence of quarters is situated within the compound of the office of Assistant

¶63

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:33869 CRL.P No. 8095 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 7617 of 2020

¶64

HC-KAR

¶65

Executive Engineer (Electrical). On 29.07.2020, election

¶66

was held for the Office bearers of employee’s union of the association. Complainant also contested, but lost. Accused No.5 was elected.

¶67

On 01.08.2020, at 6.30 p.m Abhishek, Dinesh, Santosh, Laxman and Venkatesh gathered within the compound of the office of Assistant Executive Engineer to console complainant who had lost in the election. Sharanabasappa Chinnapur, Jagadish Jannur, Parshuram Bisunale, Sangamesh Meti and Rajashekhar were also present. Abhishek had put up status in his WhatsApp account on 30.07.2020 at 8.55 p.m, stating that "Complainant need not worry. Even though he has lost, still they would support him and they are not going to change their stand mainly because he has lost and they are not like chameleons changing colour. Their support is also always to the hard-working and not to the Lazy".

¶68

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:33869 CRL.P No. 8095 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 7617 of 2020

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

Accused Nos.1 and 2 abused complainant saying

¶71

that he belong to a lower caste and he is having the audacity to contest against persons of upper caste. They also used abusive words and gave threat to him. Accused No.1 pulled CW-3, holding his collar and assaulted with hands. Accused No.2 assaulted complainant with hands. When CW-4 tried to pacify them, he was also abused referring to his caste and pushed around by accused Nos.1 and 2. When the wife of complainant tried to intervene, she was also manhandled and her Mangala sutra was pulled. Accused No.5 instigated the other accused not to leave them. Accused Nos.3 and 4 gave threat of assaulting CWs1, 3 and 4 and said that they should not be left alive. CWs2, 5, 6 and 7 intervened and saved the complainant. Based on the complaint, case was registered in Cr.No.257/2020 and after conducting detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 to 5. There is prima facie material to proceed against all the persons, including the petitioners and pray to dismiss the petition.

¶72

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:33869 CRL.P No. 8095 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 7617 of 2020

¶73

HC-KAR

¶74

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶75

Undisputed facts are that complainant and accused are employees of KEB. Their residential quarters are situated within the compound of the office of Assistant Executive Engineer (Electrical). On 29.07.2020, election was held for the office bearers of employee’s union of the association. Complainant also contested, but lost. Accused No.5 was elected. On 01.08.2020, at 6:30 PM, CW-2 Abhishek, CW-5 Dinesh, CW-7 Santosh, CW-6 C.K.Laxman and CW-9 Venkatesh had gathered within the compound of the office of Assistant Executive Engineer to console complainant who had lost in the election. Sharanabasappa Chinnapur, Jagadish Jannur, Parshuram Bisunale, Sangamesh Meti and Rajashekhar were also present.

¶76

Abhishek had put up status in his WhatsApp account on 30.07.2020 at 8.55 p.m, stating that "complaint need not worry. Even though he has lost, still they would support him and they are not going to change their stand merely because he has lost and they are not like

¶77

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC:33869 CRL.P No. 8095 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 7617 of 2020

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

chameleons changing colour. Their support is also always to the hard-working and not to the Lazy". In this connection a quarrel ensued, where in Accused Nos. 1 and 2 abused complainant saying that he belong to a lower caste and he is having the audacity to contest against persons of upper caste. They also used abusive words and gave threat them.

¶81

The accused No.1 pulled CW-3 holding his collar and assaulted with hands. Accused No.2 assaulted complainant with hands. When CW-4 tried to pacify them, he was also abused referring to his caste and pushed around by accused Nos.1 and 2. When the wife of complainant tried to intervene, she was also manhandled and her Mangalasutra was pulled. Accused No.5 instigated the other accused not to leave them. Accused Nos.3 and 4 give threat of assaulting CWs-1, 3 and 4 and said that they should not be left alive. CWs-2, 5, 6 and 7 intervened and saved the complainant.

¶82

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:33869 CRL.P No. 8095 of 2020 C/W CRL.P No. 7617 of 2020

¶83

HC-KAR

¶84

It is contended by the petitioners that in the complaint, the presence of accused No.5 is not referred. A first information report cannot be expected to be an encyclopedia of the entire case the prosecution. During their statements, the witnesses have clearly stated and spoken to about the presence of accused No.5. It is also not in dispute that complainant and some of the witnesses belong to scheduled caste. It is the specific case of the prosecution that it was accused No.5 , who indicated the other accused persons to commit the offence.

¶85

Therefore, it is for the prosecution to establish the allegations at the full-fledged trial. After conducting detailed investigation, charge sheet is filed, which makes out a strong prima facie case to proceed against the all the persons including the petitioners. Disputed facts cannot be decided in a petition under Section 482 Cr.PC. In the light of the above discussion, the Court is of the considered opinion that petitions are liable to be dismissed and accordingly the following:

¶86