Sri Sampath Raj Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Sri Sampath Raj Vs State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him? +1 more

Court's answer

The point framed for consideration — whether the petitioner made out any grounds to allow the petition and quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him — is answered in the negative.

Ratio / Principle

No material was produced before this Court in support of the petitioner's contention that he belongs to a Scheduled Tribe.

Key takeaways

While taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner, the Trial Court considered the materials on record and also took into consideration the provisions of the SC/ST Act.ratio¶53
The petitioner appeared before the Trial Court but never raised, before framing of the charge or at least during hearing before charge, the objection that as a person belonging to a Scheduled Tribe he was not bound to answer the charge under the SC/ST Act; he therefore cannot now turn around and contend that there was non-application of mind by the Trial Court while framing the charge.ratio¶54

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Constitutional writ (Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution r/w Section 482 CrPC 1973) by Accused No.57 in Spl CC No.744/2020 (Special Court, Bengaluru CCH-71) seeking quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 143, 144, 145, 435, 436, 395, 427, 447 and 120(B) r/w 149 IPC, Section 2 KPDLP Act 1981, Section 3(2)(iii)(iv)(v)(va) SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 and Section 25(1B)(b) Arms Act 1959 — the claim restricted to the SC/ST Act provisions on the plea that the petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Tribe and that the investigating officer's charge sheet had invoked only the IPC and KPDLP Act provisions. Held: no material was produced substantiating the petitioner's Scheduled Tribe status; the Trial Court, on the materials on record, took cognizance taking into consideration the SC/ST Act provisions; the petitioner never objected before framing of the charge and cannot now contend non-application of mind by the Trial Court; once the charge is framed he must face the trial and seek acquittal, particularly as the trial is underway with many witnesses examined. Answering the framed point in the negative, the writ petition is dismissed.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1059 WP No. 8382 of 2021

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

WRIT PETITION NO. 8382 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

SRI. SAMPATH RAJ S/O. LATE RAJEE, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.5, MURUGESH MUDALIAR ROAD, FRAZER TOWN, BANGALORE-560005

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. MAHESH S., ADVOCATE)

AND:

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ANTI TERRORIST CELL (EARLIER DEVERAJEEVAHALLI P S) REPRESENTED BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, BANGALORE - 560 001

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: High Court of Karnataka

SRI. R. AKHANDA SRINIVASA MURTHY S/O LATE RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, MEMBER OF LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY, PULIKESHI NAGAR CONSTITUENCY, NO.32, KAVAL BYRASANDRA, R T NAGAR POST, BENGALURU CITY-560032

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MURTHY .D. NAIK, SR. ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHENDRA .G., ADVOCATE FOR R2 SRI. RANGASWAMY R., HCGP FOR R1)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W SECTION 482 OF THE

2 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1059 WP No. 8382 of 2021

HC-KAR

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE 1973 FOR PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ENTIRE CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS AS AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN WHO IS ARRAIGNED AS ACCUSED NO.57 FOR OFFENCES UNDER U/S 143, 144, 145, 435, 436, 395, 447, 120(B) R/W 149 OF IPC, U/S 2 OF KARNATAKA PREVENTION OF DESTRUCTION AND LOSS OF PROPERTY ACT 1981 AND U/S 3(2), (III), (IV), (V) (VA) SC/ST POA ACT, 1989 AND 25(1B)(B) OF INDIA ARMS ACT 1959 BEFORE LXX ADDL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU (CCH-71) IN SPL CC 744/2020 VIDE ANNX-H AS THE CONTINUATION PROCEEDINGS IS CLEAR ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING - B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE M G UMA

ORAL ORDER

Petitioner being accused No.57 in CC No.744/2020 on the

file of the Additional City Civil and Sessions Court (Special Court), Bengaluru (CCH 71) registered for the offence punishable under Sections 143, 144, 145, 435, 436, 395, 427, 447 and 120(B) R/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and under Section 2 of the Karnataka Prevention of Destruction and Loss of Property Act, 1981 (for short 'the KPDLP Act') and under Section 3 (2),(iii),(iv),(v)(va) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1059 WP No. 8382 of 2021

HC-KAR

Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST Act') and Section 25 (1B) (b) of Indian Arms Act 1959 is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

Heard Sri. Mahesh S, learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri. Rangaswamy R., learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 and Sri. Murthy D Naik, learned Senior Advocate for Sri. Mahendra G., learned counsel for respondent No.2. Perused the materials on record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though petitioner – accused No.57 has approached this Court seeking quashing of entire criminal proceedings initiated against him for the above said offences, the petitioner intends to restrict his claim only in respect of provisions under the SC/ST Act and not with regard to the penal provisions invoked under IPC, KPDLP Act and the Arms Act. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner belongs to Scheduled Tribe and under such circumstances, the provisions of the SC/ST Act could not have been invoked against the petitioner.

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1059 WP No. 8382 of 2021

HC-KAR

He draws the attention of the Court to the charge

sheet filed by the Investigating Officer to contend that investigating office has filed the charge sheet against the present petitioner only for the offence under the provisions of IPC and KPDLT Act, 1981 and deliberately not invoked provisions of the SC/ST Act. Therefore, prays for quashing criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the provisions of the SC/ST Act.

Per contra , learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 opposing the petition submitted that a detailed charge sheet is submitted before the Trial Court. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offences for all the offences including the offence under the provision of SC/ST Act. The matter was fixed for hearing before charge. The petitioner has never raised any objections before the Trial Court and thereafter, the charge came to be framed for all the offences, including the offence punishable under the provision of SC/ST Act. Either at the time of taking cognizance of the offences or at the time of framing charge, the petitioner has never raised this question. Now the charge is already framed, witnesses are being examined before

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1059 WP No. 8382 of 2021

HC-KAR

the Trial Court. Under such circumstances, petitioner is not entitled for any relief as claimed.

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also submits that he disputes the contention that the petitioner belongs to scheduled Tribe. But in fact, he professes Christianity and therefore, he is not entitled for the relief.

In view of the rival contentions urged by learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

"Whether the petitioner has made out any grounds to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?"

My answer to the above point is in the 'Negative' for the

following:

REASONS

It is the contention of the petitioner that he belongs

to Scheduled Tribe. No material have been produced before this Court in support of his contention. The only ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Investigating Officer has not invoked the provisions of SC/ST Act against the petitioner, while filing the final report. But admittedly, the Trial

6 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1059 WP No. 8382 of 2021

HC-KAR

Court taking into consideration the materials on record, took cognizance of the offence. While taking cognizance of the offence against the petitioner, the Trial Court also has taken into consideration the provisions of the SC/ST Act.

The petitioner has appeared before the Trial Court. He has never raised any objection before framing the charge to contend that since he belongs to Schedule Tribe, he is not bound to answer the charge for the offence under the provision of SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act. There is absolutely no reason for the petitioner for not raising such ground before the Trial Court, at least during hearing before the charge. Under such circumstances, petitioner now cannot turn around and contend that there is non-application of mind by the Trial Court while framing the charge.

Once the charge is framed by the Trial Court, the petitioner has to face the Trial and seek his acquittal. When admittedly, now the matter is pending for trial and many of the witness are already examined, it is for the prosecution to prove the charges against the petitioner and the petitioner can defend his claim before the Trial Court. However, he is not entitled for

7 -

NC: 2026:KHC:1059 WP No. 8382 of 2021

HC-KAR

quashing of criminal proceedings for any of the provisions of

the enactment. Accordingly, I answer the above point in the negative and proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

The writ petition is dismissed .

SD/(M G UMA) JUDGE

BH

CT:VS

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10