Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1457
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.
Sri. Sathish, S/o Sri. Nanjundappa - Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka - Respondent
Criminal Petition No. 2526 of 2024 C/w Criminal Petition No. 5810 of 2024
Decided On : 21-08-2025
For the Appellant :SRI. RAJESH GOWDA, ADVOCATE
For the Respondent: SRI. M.R. PATIL, HCGP
The misuse of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act for personal vendetta undermines the law's purpose and warrants quashing of the proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 - Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 504, 324, 323, 506, 354A(1)(ii) - Quashing of FIR - Petitioner sought quashing of FIR and subsequent proceedings based on repeated and identical allegations from complainant’s family, found to be an abuse of process of law and harassment. (Paras 1, 21, 24)
(B) Abuse of Process - Protection of rights - The court reiterated that beneficial legislation should not be misused to settle personal disputes and emphasized the requirement for fresh material for successive prosecutions. (Paras 22, 23)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner contended that complaints filed by respondent, who was a defendant in a civil matter, were identical and aimed at harassing him, particularly as civil proceedings had granted interim relief in his favor.
Findings of Court:
The Court found the repetition of complaints and absence of fresh evidence indicative of malicious intent to misuse legal provisions for personal vendetta.
Issues: Whether the repeated complaints constituted an abuse of the criminal process and if they could be legitimately pursued considering the civil injunction in favor of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that ongoing prosecutions based on successive complaints lacking fresh material constituted a fundamental violation of justice principles, in light of prior legal protections granted to the petitioner.
Result: Petitions allowed and the proceedings were quashed.
ORDER :
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J.
Crl.P.No.2526/2024 is filed by the accused seeking quashing of the proceedings pending in Crime No.46/2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 324, 323, 506 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'the 1989 Act'). Similarly, Crl.P.No.5810/2024 is filed by the accused in respect of another case arising out of the same set of allegations made by the respondent no.2/Srirama, who is the de facto complainant, wherein charge sheet has been filed in Spl.Case SC/ST No.35/2023 for offences punishable under Sections 354A(1)(ii), 504, 506, 509 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the 1989 Act.
-
2. The case of respondent No.2/Srirama is that on 28.01.2024 at about 8.00 a.m., while he was returning to his house, the accused, who came on a motorbike, abused him in filthy language, threatened him with dire consequences, and physically assaulted him, more particularly by kicking him. Based on this complaint, Crime No.46/2024 was registered against the petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, reiterating the grounds urged in both the petitions, would contend that respondent No.2/Srirama, who is also the defendant in the civil suit filed by the petitioner, has grossly misused the provisions of the SC/ST Act by lodging false and frivolous complaints. He would submit that there is a clear pattern in which respondent No.2/Srirama has been filing complaints year after year, all of which are identical in nature and are nothing but replicas of each other, with the sole intent of harassing the petitioner.
-
4. It is to be noted that respondent No.2/ Srirama has not chosen to contest either of these petitions.
5. Per contra, learned HCGP would submit that the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1989 Act’) is a special legislation intended to protect members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes from atrocities and discrimination. Once a complaint disclosing commission of an offence under the Act is lodged, the jurisdictional police are bound to register a case and conduct investigation. He would therefore contend that since the allegations prima facie attract the provisions of the 1989 Act, no indulgence can be granted by this Court at the stage of investigation or after filing of the charge sheet.
-
6. It is further submitted that in Crl.P.No.2526/2024, though a crime has been registered, this Court has stayed further investigation, whereas in the connected petition, Crl.P.No.5810/2024, investigation has culminated in filing of a charge sheet. Hence, the petitioner, if aggrieved, must face a full-fledged trial, and therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court in either of the petitions.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned HCGP, this Court finds it necessary to examine the tenor and nature of allegations made by respondent No.2/Srirama and his wife and brother in successive complaints filed during the last four years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also pointed out that the petitioner is already facing trial in two other identical cases registered in the preceding years.
8. Before adverting to the allegations in the present complaint, it is necessary to notice that the mother of the petitioner has instituted O.S.No.561/2023 seeking protection of her possession over the suit schedule property. In the said suit, she has specifically alleged that respondent No.2/Srirama and his men attempted to interfere with her peaceful possession. For better appreciation, this Court deems it appropriate to extract paragraphs 5 to 8 of the plaint, which read as under:
-
"5. It is submitted that, the defendants are nowhere related to the suit schedule property and they are backed by unruly elements, making hectic attempts to trespass and trying to construct the house on the northern side vacant property of the suit
