Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.NAGAPRASANNA
Gangadhar C/o Shivayya Gandadamata – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. complaint concerns land dispute leading to alleged assaults. (Para 1 , 4) |
| 2. petitioners argue interim order limited to act's offences. (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 3. court assesses allegations under the act. (Para 7 , 9) |
| 4. ingredients of offences under the act not met. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. court's order quashes certain charges. (Para 12 , 13) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioners in both these petitions are before this Court calling in question registration of a crime in crime No.176/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 504 read with Section 149 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short). Both these petitions are filed challenging the same crime but are filed by different accused. Therefore, both the petitions are taken together and considered by this common order.
2. Heard Sri. Rohith B.J., learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri. Nageshwarappa, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1.
3. Respondent No.2 though served 3 years ago has remained unrepresented. The State has p
Insults under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act require public visibility and an intent to humiliate; mere civil disputes do not qualify as offences under this Act.
Section 3(1)(r) of the SC and ST Act makes it manifest that mere insult or intimidation with an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by itself is not made an offence.....
Charges under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act cannot stand without evidence of insult or intimidation occurring in public view, while IPC offences are sustained as evidence supports the....
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.
(1) Casteist abuses and criminal intimidation – Place of occurrence must be one “within public view” which is a sine qua non for making out offence under SC/ST Act.(2) Quashing of criminal case – Con....
The court clarified the interpretation of 'within public view' in the context of the Atrocities Act, holding that a place can be considered 'within public view' even if it is a private place, provide....
The judgment established the principle that for an offence under the SC/ST Act, insults or intimidations must be targeted at the victim because of their scheduled caste or tribe status, and the conte....
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
