Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 31098
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M.NAGAPRASANNA, J
RAJANNA H S/O HANUMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 8837 OF 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: DINESH C R
For the Respondents: B.N. JAGADEESHA, MANJEGOWDA K.G.
The Atrocities Act does not apply without intent to insult based on caste; charges under IPC for physical assault can still proceed.
Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 - The accused challenged proceedings arising from a complaint alleging offences under various sections of IPC and the Atrocities Act following a civil property dispute - Court held that mere verbal abuses without intent to insult based on caste do not constitute an offence under the Atrocities Act - The allegations were deemed unsubstantiated in light of existing civil litigation and lack of intention to humiliate based on caste. (Paras 18-24)
(B) Criminal charges - The court acknowledged that while offences under the Atrocities Act were not established, charges under IPC sections 323, 324, 354, 504 and 506 were sustained as they involved actual injuries sustained by the complainant, necessitating trial. (Paras 9-10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioners were accused of assaulting a complainant after a boundary dispute related to ongoing civil litigation; the complainant alleged caste-related abuses which the court found unsubstantiated.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed the Atrocities Act charges but sustained the IPC charges due to evidence of injuries.
Issues: Whether the accusations constituted an offence under the Atrocities Act and the implications of ongoing civil disputes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that without clear intent to insult based on caste, accusations under the Atrocities Act were unfounded; however, IPC charges related to physical assaults were valid.
Result: Petition allowed in part; Atrocities Act charges quashed, IPC charges sustained against certain accused.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. filing of petition against ongoing proceedings. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. dispute stems from civil litigation. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. initial findings on the allegations presented. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. order regarding continuance or quashing of charges. (Para 11) |
ORAL ORDER
The petitioners - accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 are at the doors of this Court calling in question proceedings in Spl.C.No.325/2024 registered for offences punishable under Section 3 23 , 324, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 3 4 of the IPC and Section 3 (1)(r)(s), (3)(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Act , 2015.
2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.C.R.Dinesh, appearing for the petitioners, the learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri.B.N.Jagadeesha, appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel Sri.Manjegowda K.G., appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:
The petitioners and CW.6 - One Chandrappa have an impending dispute with regard to the boundary of the property. It transpires that petitioner Nos.1 and 2 institute a suit in O.S.No.376 of 2024, in which the concerned Court grants an injunction against Chandrappa - CW.6 restraining him from interfering with the possession of the petitioners. On 03.05.2024, the employees of Chandrappa - the complainant registers a complaint alleging that the complainant has been assaulted and also hurled abuses, which would become an offence under the Atrocities Act. This becomes a crime in Crime No.71 of 2024 for the afore-quoted offences. It transpires that the police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. Filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the petitioners to this Court, in the subject petition.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that the complainant is setup by CW.6 - Chandrappa, who has an axe to grind against the petitioners since the civil dispute between the two regarding the boundary is pending consideration before the concerned Civil Court. He would submit that none of the incidents that have happened on the said date have occurred, it is only an imaginary allegation that is made by the complainant against the petitioners.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent - complainant would refute the submission in contending that the complainant was gravely assaulted and hurled abuses taking the name of the caste of the complainant and the police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. It is a matter of trial for the petitioners to come out clean. Therefore, would seek dismissal of the petition.
6. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor Sri.B.N.Jagadeesh, taking this Court through the wound certificate and the evidence of eyewitnesses would seek to demonstrate that in fact abuses have been hurled and the injury is caused to the complainant and would seek dismissal of the petition contending that it is a matter of trial.
7. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record.
8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue is the dispute between one Chandrappa - CW6 and the petitioners. The petitioners approached the Civil Court in O.S.No.376 of 2024, in which they are granted an order of injunction. After which comes the impugned complaint on 03.05.2024. The complainant is the employee of CW.6. Since the entire issue is triggered from the complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the gist of the complaint as found in column No.10 of the FIR, which reads as follows:
The police after investigation have filed a charge sheet. The summary of the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17, reads as follows:
A perusal at the complaint and the charge sheet would unmistakably indicate that the offences under the Atrocities Act are not made out even to its remotest sense, as the dispute between Chandrappa and the petitioners have led an employee of Chandrappa to
