Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.NAGAPRASANNA
Lokesh S., S/o. Late Puttaraju – Appellant
Versus
State Of Karnataka, State By Shravanabelagola Police Station, Represented By State Public Prosecutor – Respondent
ORDER :
M. NAGAPRASANNA, J.
The petitioners three in number, accused 1, 2 and 3, stand at the doors of this Court, calling in question proceedings in Special Case No.53/2024 registered for the offences under Sections 447, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(g) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short).
2. Heard Sri Girish B. Baladare, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri J.C.Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
3. Facts enumerated are as follows:
The tussle is between the complainant and these petitioners for a particular piece of land, which the petitioners claim that they are in unauthorised occupation and the complainant claims that it has been granted to her way back in the year 1978. Owing to certain dispute with regard to the said land, the complainant was constrained to institute a suit in O.S.No.956/2023 to protect her possession and restraining the petitioners from interfering with the property. The concerned Court in OS 956/2023 gr
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....
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.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principles of abuse of process of law and mala fide intentions in filing a complaint, as outlined in State Haryana Versus Bh....
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....
Allegations under the SC/ST Act require intentional insult or intimidation in public view; dismissal of revision upholds trial due to sufficient prima facie evidence.
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
