Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J.
Shyam Mehta and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
State of Karnataka and Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Petition No.100213 of 2025
(482 of Cr.PC/528 of BNSS)
Decided on 2.4.2026
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioners:Sri. Shridhar Prabhu, Advocate
For the Respondents No.1: Sri. Abhishek Malipatil, HCGP
For the Respondents No.2:Sri. Rajneet M. Pawar, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Insult and abuse in public view – Delay is a question of fact for trial to verify whether complaint averments are genuine or not.
(2) Public view does not necessity mean public view by any passer by public but if employees are at that place such employees are also to be considered as members of public.
Headnote:
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 – Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 504 and 584 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Insult and abuse in public view – Quashing petition – Just because a notice for strike is issued and a complaint is lodged, linking these two events is nothing but appears to be coincidence – Delay is a question of fact for trial to verify whether complaint averments are genuine or not – Under these circumstances, proceedings cannot be quashed as lodging of complaint does not amount to abuse of process of Court as prima facie case is made out to proceed with trial – Prima facie averments in complaint constitute offences to be triable during trial – Genuineness and veracity of averments of complaint cannot be decided at this stage – When alleged incident took place, it was easily amenable to public view – Public view does not necessity mean public view by any passer by public but if employees are at that place such employees are also to be considered as members of public – Prosecution has made out prima facie case for trial and not found to be abuse of process of Court – Petition dismissed. (Paras 23, 26, 27, 28, 40 and 41)
Result: Criminal Petition dismissed.
ORDER (CAV)
Hanchate Sanjeevkumar, J.—This criminal petition is filed by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C)/528 of Bharatiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) praying to quash the entire proceedings initiated against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 with the following prayer:—
“PRAYER
A. Quash the First Information Report in Crime No. 0146/2024 registered by the Respondent, on 29th October 2024 for alleged offenses, under Section 504 and 584 of IPC, and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC and ST Act, as the same is arbitrary, baseless, and does not disclose any prima facie case against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 registered on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad sitting at Hubballi, registered against the Petitioner by the 1st Respondent produced at Annexure-A.
B. Direction, restraining the Respondent Police from conducting any further investigation in Crime No.146/2024.
C. Grant the cost of this Petition.
D. Pass any other appropriate order/direction as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit to grant under the present facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”
2. It is the brief case of prosecution as per the FIR and complaint averments that the complainant and another person, namely Hanumanth Gurugunti, belong to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Community and were working for 20 years in the “Swims Technology Private Limited Factory” (‘the factory’ for short). On 06.02.2024, at about 3.30 p.m. to 4.45 p.m., the owners of the factory, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 arrived at the main gate of the dispatch section of the factory.
3. During this interaction, the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 attempted to put pressure on the complainant and one Hanumanth Gurugunti to file a complaint against one Mahadev Khandekar, but they refused to comply with the request of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3. Therefore, they abused the complainant and Hanumanth Gurugunti in filthy language, specifically using derogatory terms with reference to caste, by saying that even if we directed to lodge a complaint before the Police Station, nothing had happened; hence, they abused, insulted and humiliated the complainant and Hanumanth Gurugunti in public view and threatened to dismiss them from employment. Hence, with these allegations, the complaint is lodged and the crime is registered for the offences as above stated.
4. Heard the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, learned HCGP appearing on behalf of respondent No.1/State and learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 submitted that filing of the complaint by invoking the provisions of offences under the Scheduled Caste and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the SC and ST Act, 1989’) is nothing but abuse of process of the Court. It is submitted that even as per the complaint averments, the alleged incident took place on 06.04.2024, but the complaint was lodged on 29.10.2024; therefore, there is enormous delay in lodging the complaint, which itself goes to show that the entire complaint averments are false.
6. Furthermore, the complainant and Hanumanth Gurugunti are working in the factory as workmen and there is a trade union dispute between the management and the workmen of the factory; thus, lodging of the complaint is only to threaten the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3, who are the owners of the factory. Therefore, there is a labour dispute pending and in order to achieve their oblique motive, such false complaint has been filed. Further, it is submitted that the alleged incident as per the complaint averments occurred inside the factory premises and there is no access to the public nor is there any possibility of it being viewed by the public. Therefore, the entire complaint averments are false.
7. Further submitted t
