Karnataka High Court
Smt. Malathi Nagaraj Shetty vs The State Of Karnataka on 18 February, 2026
Author: S Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC:10906
CRL.P No. 12899 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 12899 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. MALATHI NAGARAJ SHETTY
W/O SRI NAGARAJ SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.
2. SRI NITHISH SHETTY @
NITHS SHETTY (AS PER FIR)
S/O NAGARAJ SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS.
3. SRI AVIK SAGAR SHETTY
@ AVIK SHETTY (AS PER FIR)
S/O SRI NAGARAJ SHETTY
AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS.
PETITIONER NO.1 TO 3
ALL ARE RESIDING AT
NO.225, SURYA RESIDENCY
6TH MAIN, 4TH LBOCK
Digitally
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011.
signed by
NANDINI M S
4. SHREYAS A
Location:
HIGH COURT S/O ASHOK P.R.
OF AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS
KARNATAKA
R/AT NO.1107, 26TH MAIN
35TH CROSS, JAYANAGAR 4TH T BLOCK
BANGALORE - 560 011.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADV.)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER
JAYANGAR POLICE STATION
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC:10906
CRL.P No. 12899 of 2024
HC-KAR
BANGALORE - 570 048
REPRESENTED BY STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT BUILIDNG
BANGALOLRE - 5600001.
2. ANAND V.M
S/O SRI MALLESH
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
NO.225, SURYA RESIDENCY
6TH MAIN, 4TH BLOCK
JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 011.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CHANNAPPA ERAPPA, HCGP FOR R-1;
SRI HARISHA J, ADV., FOR R-2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S 482 CR.PC (FILED U/S 528 BNNS)
PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED 08.06.2024
(ANNEXURE-A) FIR DATED 08.06.2024 IN CR.NO.202/2024
(ANNEXURE-B) CHARGE SHEET DATED 05.08.2024(ANNEXURE-C)
THE ORDER DATED 17.08.2024 IN SPL.C.NO.1489/2024 AND ENTIRE
PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.1489/2024 PENDING ON THE FILE OF
LEARNED LXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND
SPL.JUDGE AT BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-D) FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S
3(2)(5a) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AND ALSO UNDER
SEC.506,34,504,323,324 OF IPC (COGNIZANCE TAKEN FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(r)(s) 3(2)(va) OF ATROCITIES ACT IN
SPL.C.NO.1489/2024 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S VISHWAJITH SHETTY
ORAL ORDER
1. Accused Nos.2 to 5 are before this Court in this criminal petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the entire proceedings in Spl.C.No.1489/2024 pending before the Court of LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and -3- NC: 2026:KHC:10906 CRL.P No. 12899 of 2024 HC-KAR Special Judge, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.202/2024 registered by Jayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 and 34 of IPC and Section 3(2)(va) and 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SC/ST (POA) Act' for short).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
3. Facts leading to filing of this criminal petition as revealed from the records are FIR in Crime No.202/2024 was registered by Jayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru, against Nagaraj Shetty and the petitioners herein, based on the first information dated 08.06.2024 received from respondent No.2 herein. Police after investigation have filed charge sheet against the petitioners for the aforesaid offences. Accused No.1 named in the FIR has been dropped in the charge sheet. Accused No.2 is the mother of accused Nos.3 and 4. Accused No.5 is the friend of accused No.3. Accused Nos.2 to 4 along with accused No.1 named in the FIR are the tenants in the property belonging to CW-3 - Vishwas Gauthan and respondent No.2 (CW1), who is the -4- NC: 2026:KHC:10906 CRL.P No. 12899 of 2024 HC-KAR victim in the present case is the employee of CW-3 and he allegedly was taking care of the property. The allegation against the accused in the charge sheet is that they were quarreling with CW-1 herein frequently on petty issues and on 08.06.2024 when accused No.3 came down from his apartment with his dog, a quarrel had taken place between CW1 and accused No.3. Thereafter, accused Nos.2 and 4 also came to the spot along with accused No.5 and had quarreled with CW1. Accused Nos.3 to 5 allegedly had assaulted CW-1 with plastic chair and table and when CW3 tried to interfere, accused No.3 allegedly abused CW1 referring to his caste.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that none of the charge sheet witnesses have stated that accused persons have abused CW1, who belongs to Scheduled Caste, referring to his caste. He submits that even the offence punishable under Section 324 of IPC does not get attracted in the present case and the victim (CW1) has suffered only simple injuries in the incident. No weapon was used by the accused to assault CW1. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition. -5-
NC: 2026:KHC:10906 CRL.P No. 12899 of 2024 HC-KAR
5. Per contra, learned HCGP for respondent No.1/State and learned counsel for respondent No.2, who has filed his statement of objections have opposed the prayer made in the petition. They submit that charge sheet material makes out a prima facie case as against the petitioner for the alleged offences. This Court cannot hold a mini trial at this stage. Victim has suffered injuries in the incident and allegation against the accused is that they have assaulted him with chair and table. CW1 undisputedly belongs to scheduled caste and therefore, the act committed by the accused will attract the charge-sheeted offences. Accordingly, they pray to dismiss the petition.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 in support of his arguments has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation vs. Arvind Khanna in Criminal Appeal No.1572/2019 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1420/2017.
7. In the first information, which is submitted by the victim (CW1), he has stated that he is working in the apartment complex belonging to CW-3 for the past 16 years. The accused -6- NC: 2026:KHC:10906 CRL.P No. 12899 of 2024 HC-KAR named in the FIR was introduced by him as tenants to CW-3. Initially, the accused used to talk to him and they also used to give him food. Subsequently, after coming to know that he belongs to scheduled caste, they started abusing him and they also did not allow him to enter their house. However, in the first information he has not given the particulars of any such incident which had taken place earlier where the accused persons have abused him or assaulted him after referring to his caste. In respect of alleged incident that had taken place on 08.06.2024, he has stated that accused Nos.1 to 5 named in the FIR had abused him referring to his caste and also assaulted him with chair causing him injuries. During the course of investigation, police have recorded statement of CW2, 3, 4, 6 and 7, who are the alleged eye witnesses to the incident that had taken place on 08.06.2024.
8. Perusal of the statement of the aforesaid eyewitnesses would go to show that none of the eyewitnesses have stated that accused persons had abused CW1 on the alleged date of the incident referring to his caste. All the eye witnesses have only spoken about the quarrel between the accused and CW1. -7-
NC: 2026:KHC:10906 CRL.P No. 12899 of 2024 HC-KAR Even CW-3 has not made any such allegation in his statement about the accused persons abusing the victim referring to his caste. Except CW1, no other charge sheet witness has stated that accused persons had abused CW1 on the alleged date of incident referring to his caste. Charge sheet has been filed in the present case against the petitioners invoking Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. However, the Trial Court has taken cognizance against the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
9. Section 3(1)(r)(s) and Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, reads as follows:-
"3. Punishments for offences atrocities.-- [(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,--
xxx
(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;
(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;"-8-
NC: 2026:KHC:10906 CRL.P No. 12899 of 2024 HC-KAR xxx "(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,--
[(va) commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a person or property, knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to such member, shall be punishable with such punishment as specified under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and shall also be liable to fine;]"
10. For the purpose of attracting the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, accused should have abused or insulted the member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe by referring to his caste in any place within public view. As stated earlier, there is absolutely no material available on record which would attract Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, against the accused. For the purpose of attracting the offence punishable under Section 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, accused persons should have committed the offence specified in the Schedule given to the Act against a person or property knowing that such person is a member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or such property belongs to him.
-9-
NC: 2026:KHC:10906 CRL.P No. 12899 of 2024 HC-KAR
11. In the present case, the property which is in dispute does not belong to CW1. There is no such allegation either in the first information or in the charge sheet that accused persons had quarreled with the victim and assaulted him for the reason that he is a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.
12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. The State of Uttarkhand and Another - (2020) 10 SCC 710, in paragraph Nos.17 and 18 has held as under:-
"17. In another judgment reported as Khuman Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, this Court held that in a case for applicability of Section 3(2)(v) of the Act, the fact that the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste would not be enough to inflict enhanced punishment. This Court held that there was nothing to suggest that the offence was committed by the appellant only because the deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste. The Court held as under:
"15. As held by the Supreme Court, the offence must be such so as to attract the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The offence must have been committed against the person on the ground that such person is a member of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the fact that the deceased was
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10906 CRL.P No. 12899 of 2024 HC-KAR belonging to "Khangar-Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no evidence to show that the offence was committed only on the ground that the victim was a member of the Scheduled Caste and therefore, the conviction of the appellant- accused under Section 3(2) (v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable."
18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out."
13. The judgment on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for respondent No.2 cannot be made applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case more so having regard to the charge sheet material available on record in the present case. It is relevant to note here that there is tenancy dispute between CW-3 and accused nos.1 to 4. CW-1 is the employee of CW-3. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the charge sheet material are not sufficient to
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10906 CRL.P No. 12899 of 2024 HC-KAR prosecute the petitioners for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) & 3(2)(v)(a) of the SC/ST (POA) Act.
14. Insofar as the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC are concerned, the material on record would go to show that the accused persons after quarreling with the victim (CW1) had also assaulted him and as a result, he has suffered simple injuries. His Wound Certificate is available along with the charge sheet and the statement of the Doctor, who had treated him was also recorded by the Investigation Officer. The allegation in the first information as well as in the charge sheet is that accused persons had used chair and table for assaulting victim (CW1), who has suffered simple injuries as a result of the assault made by them. It is also alleged that the accused persons have criminally intimidated the victim after assaulting him. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion that there is prima facie material to proceed against the accused persons for the alleged offences under the Indian Penal Code. Under the circumstances, the following:-
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC:10906 CRL.P No. 12899 of 2024 HC-KAR ORDER
(i) The criminal petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The entire proceedings in Spl.C.No.1489/2024 pending before the Court of LXX Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.202/2024 registered by Jayanagar Police Station, Bengaluru, insofar as it relates to the offences punishable under Section 3(2)(v)(a) and 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014, is quashed.
(iii) However, it is made clear that the proceedings insofar as it relates to the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with 34 of IPC shall continue against the petitioners.
Sd/-
(S VISHWAJITH SHETTY) JUDGE DN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56