The High Court of Karnataka has formally quashed the chargesheet filed against seventeen individuals who had been accused of inciting communal tension near a religious site in Mandya district. In a decisive order, the Court ruled that continuing the criminal proceedings would constitute an abuse of the judicial process , primarily due to the state’s failure to produce any independent evidence to substantiate the serious allegations leveled against the petitioners. The ruling effectively terminates the pending case, which had been registered under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) following an incident in October 2019 .

The legal battle stemmed from a complaint lodged by the K.R. Pet Rural Police Station on October 27, 2019 . According to the chargesheet, the seventeen accused—ranging from 21 to 34 years of age—had formed an unlawful assembly near the Ghouse Peer Qadri Dargha in Alambadi Kavalu Village. The prosecution alleged that during this gathering, one of the petitioners, identified as a member of a known organization, delivered a provocative speech urging attendees to display the “power of Islam Religion Organization” through unity and by engaging in illegal activities that would ostensibly paralyze social tranquility. Based on these allegations, the police had charged the group under Sections 143 ( unlawful assembly ), 153 (wantonly giving provocation with intent to cause riot), 117 (abetting commission of an offense by the public), and 149 ( common object ) of the IPC.

Evaluating the Absence of Independent Witnesses

During the preliminary hearing before the High Court, the defense counsel challenged the legitimacy of the charges, highlighting a significant procedural flaw: the total absence of independent testimony. The defense argued that the assembly of individuals near the Dargah was a routine occurrence on a Sunday and did not inherently indicate malicious intent. More critically, the petition pointed out that the entire case relied exclusively on the accounts of police officers who claimed to have overheard the inflammatory remarks.

The defense presented a compelling argument to the Court, questioning the conduct of the law enforcement officials present at the scene. They queried why, if the police were indeed positioned nearby and had clearly overheard such purported incitement to illegal activity, they did not intervene immediately to prevent the escalation or disperse the gathering. Instead, the police maintained they had hidden behind a fence to observe the event before ultimately registering a criminal case and seizing the motorcycles used by the participants. The Court scrutinized this narrative, noting that the investigative record lacked any corroboration from members of the public or independent witnesses residing in the vicinity of the Dargah. By relying solely on the statements of the police team that conducted the raid, the prosecution failed to establish a prima facie case that could survive judicial scrutiny.

Police Conduct and Allegations of Statutory Misuse

The judiciary expressed significant concern regarding the reliance on internal police statements to anchor a criminal prosecution involving such sensitive charges. The High Court emphasized that where the only available evidence is the testimony of the complainants themselves—the police officers who initiated the raid—the threshold for proving allegations of provoking riots or abetting illegal acts becomes increasingly difficult to meet without independent verification. Justice V Srishananda observed that such circumstances frequently lean toward the unnecessary continuation of litigation, which places an undue burden on the accused and misuses the resources of the criminal justice system.

The Court’s analysis centered on the doctrine of preventing the abuse of the process of law. As noted in the proceedings, the lack of third-party witnesses—despite the incident occurring in a populated area near a place of worship—raised fundamental questions about the veracity of the state’s claims. The Court inferred that the case against the seventeen petitioners lacked the necessary evidentiary foundation to proceed to a full trial. This aligns with broader legal principles that require the state to provide credible and corroborated proof when restricting individual liberties through criminal charges. By highlighting these procedural gaps, the Court signaled a stern stance against the initiation of criminal cases based on subjective police interpretations of public assemblies without secondary validation.

Final Resolution of the Criminal Complaint

Following a thorough review of the arguments, Justice Srishananda concluded that the evidence presented in the chargesheet was insufficient to warrant a trial. The Court found that allowing the case, registered as C.C. No. 208/2020 arising from Crime No. 214/2019, to persist would only result in further legal hardship for the petitioners, with little prospect of a conviction based on the current material. The final order was clear and unequivocal: the Court allowed the writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure .

Consequently, the chargesheet dated July 26, 2020 , and the subsequent cognizance order issued by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Krishnarajpet , have been quashed in their entirety. The seventeen individuals are now absolved of the charges previously pending against them in the trial court. This resolution brings a definitive end to a years-long legal ordeal for the petitioners, reinforcing the principle that criminal investigations must be supported by robust, independent evidence rather than solely relying on the observations of those who conducted the initial police operation. The matter is now concluded, with no further procedural hurdles expected for the accused in this specific criminal matter.