Back
SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
Raju – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. The Criminal Petition No.104105/2022 is filed by accused No.2 and Criminal Petition No.101177/2022 is filed by accused No.1. Both the petitions are filed praying to quash the FIR and complaint in Dharwad, Sub-Urban Police Station Crime No.28/2022 registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(p), 3(2)(v-a) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (hereinafter referred as 'the Act' for brevity) and Ss. 353 and 504 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as 'IPC' for brevity).
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.
3. Respondent No.2 filed complaint and the same came to be registered in Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station Crime No.28/2022 for the aforesaid offences. In the FIR, petitioners have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2. The petitioners have sought quashing of the complaint and FIR in Crime No.28/2022 of Dharwad SubUrban Police Station.
4. Learned counsel for accused No.2 (petitioner in Crime No.104105/2022) would contend that there is no allegation of any abuse to re
The essential elements required to establish offences under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act must be explicitly stated in the FIR, including the caste status o....
Point of law : Insulting/hurting anyone’s feelings on account of his caste, religion, tribe, language, etc., deprecated. The learned counsel referring these judgments vehemently contended that the co....
The court quashed proceedings against petitioners as allegations did not constitute an offence under the SC/ST Act, emphasizing the need for prima facie grounds for prosecution.
The court quashed proceedings under the SC/ST Act due to lack of public view in the alleged incident, emphasizing the need for specific ingredients to establish the offence.
A complaint under the Atrocities Act filed after substantial delay lacks merit and may be quashed if it does not present a prima facie case.
The court emphasized that quashing proceedings requires compelling reasons, particularly when allegations are vague and unsupported by evidence.
Vague allegations without specific roles attributed to accused do not warrant continuation of criminal proceedings, necessitating quashing to prevent abuse of process of law.
The court held that an allegation of abuse in the name of caste must be supported by evidence and cannot be made as an afterthought or with mala fide intention. The court also held that a delay in lo....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
