Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M. NAGAPRASANNA
Vilas Bhormalji Oswal S/o Bormalji Oswal – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka – Respondent
ORDER :
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
The petitioner/accused is at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in Special Case No.943 of 2024 pending before the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru, arising out of crime in Crime No.126 of 2024, registered for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short) and Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC.
2. Facts, adumbrated are as follows: -
The 2nd respondent is the complainant. It is the case of the prosecution that the 2nd respondent and the petitioner along with two others were partners in the business of real estate established in the name and style of ‘Green Land Infra’ in Bangalore City. The firm is registered on 28-01-2011. On 08.08.2011, the petitioner along with his wife and one witness CW-6/Mohan Kagadala joined the firm as business partners. The agreement between the partners was said to be that the complainant will be appointed as the Managing Director and the petitioner would be nominated as a Joint Signatory Authority. All the partners come togethe
Delay in lodging a complaint and lack of sufficient evidence obscured intent to humiliate under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, leading to quashing of proceedings.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to prevent the misuse of the provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and to discourage dis....
The absence of public view during the alleged incident and lack of independent witnesses led to the quashing of the FIR under the Atrocity Act and IPC.
The court reaffirmed that criminal proceedings cannot be initiated based solely on civil disputes; the FIR was quashed due to lack of substantive allegations of a crime under the relevant laws.
Every insult or intimidation for humiliation to a person would not amount to offence under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act unless such insult or intimidation is targeted at victim because of he being a ....
The court quashed the cognizance order due to lack of credible evidence, unexplained delay in lodging the complaint, and absence of eyewitnesses, indicating an abuse of process of law.
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
