IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1886 OF 2025 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

BETWEEN:

1. SRI RAHUL M S/O MANJUNATH.R, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, NO.9, SRI SAI SAMRUDHI APARTMENT, SRINIVASAPURA, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064 AADHAR NO.2175 0063 8930

2. SRI RAKESH M S/O MANJUNATH.R, AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, NO.9, SRI SAI SAMRUDHI APARTMENT, Digitally signed by SRINIVASAPURA, YELAHANKA, LAKSHMI T Location: BANGALORE-560064 High Court of Karnataka AADHAR NO. 2591 6701 0215

3. SRI MANJUNATH R S/O RAMACHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, NO.9, SRI SAI SAMRUDHI APARTMENT, SRINIVASAPURA, YELAHANKA, BANGALORE-560064 AADHAR NO. 8850 1242 3473 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VENKATESHA T S, ADVOCATE (P/H))

AND:

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, YELAHANKA POLICE STATION, YELAHANKA SUB DIVISION, BANGALORE CITY-560064 REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE-560001.

2. SRI PRAJWAL S/O PRABHAKAR, AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS, SJ LAYOUT, OPP HEMANNASWAMY TEMPLE, BALAJI LAYOUT, SRINIVASAPURA, YELAHANKA-560064 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.V.ANOOP KUMAR., HCGP FOR R1 (P/H)

SRI. HARSHA M., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. INDRA DHANUSH M.A., ADVOCATE FOR R2 (P/H))

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.P.C (U/S 528 BNSS) BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.6/2025 REGISTERED BY YELAHANKA P.S., BENGALURU CITY, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE LXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-71), BANGALORE, FOR OFFENCES P/U/S 115(2), 118(1), 352, 3(5) OF THE BNS, 2023, U/S 3(1)(r),3(1)(s),3(2)(5a) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

ORAL ORDER

Petitioners are seeking to quash the FIR in Crime No.6/2025 registered at Yelahanka Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(5a), of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014 and Sections 115(2), 118(1), 352 and 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.

2. The complaint is lodged by the second respondent herein, victim in the case, wherein he has alleged that on 07.01.2025 at about 04.30 p.m., while he was returning to his house from work, he saw four boys sitting and consuming ganja and therefore, he reprimanded them. Thereafter, at about 06.58 p.m. his friend by name Rahul (accused No.1) called him and asked him to come near the Hollow block factory and when he went there along with his friends Kishore and Rehamath, all of a sudden the accused persons started assaulting him with a chopper on the head and with hands and abused him in filthy language, taking reference to his caste etc.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that as per the complaint averments, the complainant was residing in the locality only for four months and therefore, the allegations that he knew the caste of the complainant is not correct. He further contended that there are omnibus allegations made that the complainant was abused with reference to his caste, but the incident has not taken place within the public view and therefore, the ingredients of the offences alleged are not made out.

4. The learned counsel has relied on the following judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in support of his contentions:

i. Daya Bhatnagar Vs. State, LAWS(DLH)-2004-1-

89; relevant para extracted as hereunder:

“(19.) The SC/ST Act was enacted with a laudable object to protect vulnerable section of the society. Sub- clauses (i) to (xv) of Section 3(1) of the Act enumerate various kinds of atrocities that might be perpetrated against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, which constitute an offence. However, Sub-clause (x) is the only clause where even offending "utterances" have been made punishable. The Legislature required intention' as an essential ingredient for the offence of "insult", "intimidation' and "humiliation' of a member of the Scheduled