Karnataka High Court
Hulappa Bani S/O. Rangappa Bani vs The State Of Karnataka on 20 August, 2025
Author: S.Vishwajith Shetty
Bench: S.Vishwajith Shetty
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10515
CRL.P No. 102944 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 102944 OF 2025
(482(CR.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
1. HULAPPA BANI S/O. RANGAPPA BANI,
AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MURUDI VILLAGE, TQ. ILKAL,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 125.
2. NINGAPPA BANI S/O. HANUMAPPA BANI,
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MURUDI VILLAGE, TQ. ILKAL,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 125.
3. BASAPPA BANI S/O. RANGAPPA BANI,
AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
Digitally signed
R/O. MURUDI VILLAGE, TQ. ILKAL,
by RAKESH S DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 125.
RAKESH HARIHAR
Location: HIGH
S COURT OF
HARIHAR KARNATAKA 4. SANGAPPA BANI S/O. NINGAPPA BANI,
DHARWAD
BENCH AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MURUDI VILLAGE, TQ. ILKAL,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 125.
5. BASAPPA BANI S/O. NINGAPPA BANI,
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MURUDI VILLAGE, TQ. ILKAL,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 125.
6. MAHANTESH URF MUTAPPA BANI
S/O. RANGAPPA BANI,
AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O. MURUDI VILLAGE, TQ. ILKAL,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10515
CRL.P No. 102944 of 2025
HC-KAR
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 125.
7. MANJULA URF MANJAVVA
W/O. BASAVARAJ BANI,
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. MURUDI VILLAGE, TQ. ILKAL,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 125.
8. LALITHA BANI W/O. BASAVARAJ BANI,
AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. MURUDI VILLAGE, TQ. ILKAL,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 125.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. RAJA RAGHAVENDRA NAIK, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH AMINAGAD P.S.,
BAGALKOTE DISTRICT,
R/BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD-580 011.
2. RENAVVA TALWAR W/O. HANUMAPPA,
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE,
R/O. MURUDI VILLAGE, TQ. ILKAL,
DIST. BAGALKOTE-587 125.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. (UNDER SECTION 528 OF BNSS, 2023), PRAYING TO QUASH
THE PROCEEDINGS REGISTERED BEFORE AMINGAD POLICE STATION
IN CRIME NO.118/2024 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 189(2), 191(2) (3), 115(2), 118(1), 74, 351(2), 352, 190
OF BNS 2023 AND SECTION 3(1) (R) (S), 3(2) (5A) OF SC AND ST
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES AMENDMENT BILL 2015 IN
SPL.C/108/2024 PENDING IN THE COURT OF IV ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE, BAGALKOTE IN SO FAR AGAINST
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 6, 9 AND 12, IN THE INTEREST OF
JUSTICE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY,
ORDER IS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10515
CRL.P No. 102944 of 2025
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
1. Accused Nos.1 to 6, 9 and 12 are before this
Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. with a prayer to
quash the entire proceedings in Special Case No.108 of
2024 pending before the Court of IV-Addl. District and
Sessions Judge, Bagalkot, arising out of Crime No.118 of
2024, registered by Amengad Police Station, Hungunda
Circle, Bagalkot District for the offence punishable under
Sections 189(2), 191(2) (3), 115(2), 118(1), 74, 351(2),
352, 190 of BNS, 2023 and Sections 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(5a) of
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of
Atrocities) Amendment Bill, 2015, as against them.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners
having reiterated the grounds urged in the petition submits
that, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the
present case, in view of the dispute pending between them.
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10515
HC-KAR
Even if the allegations found in the first information and the
charge sheet are presumed to be true, no case for the
alleged offences can be made out against the petitioners.
There is no such mention in the first information that in the
presence of the public, the petitioners had criminally
intimidated the victim. He submits that merely for the
reason that the victim belongs to the scheduled caste or
scheduled tribe, the offences punishable under the
provisions of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act cannot be invoked against the
accused. In support of the said submission, learned counsel
for the petitioners has placed reliance on the judgment of
the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Sri
Shailesh Kumar S/o. Venkatesh L. Vs. State of
Karnataka, by Suryanagar Police Station and
another1.
4. Per contra, learned HCGP who has opposed the
petition submits that there is a prima facie case as against
1 th
Crl.P. No.2797/2022, DD: 17 January 2023
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10515
HC-KAR
the accused in the present case and therefore, the prayer
made in the petition is liable to be rejected.
5. From a perusal of the averments made in the
first information and the allegations found in the charge
sheet, it appears that there is certain civil dispute between
the parties and it is in this background the alleged incident
had taken place on 08.09.2024 at about 08:00 a.m., in
which the accused persons had abused the first informant,
assaulted her with hands and legs and also outraged her
modesty. It is further alleged that, thereafter the accused
criminally intimidated her and at that time the persons who
were present near the spot of crime had interfered and had
rescued the first informant. In the alleged incident, the
victim has suffered injuries and CW13 is the Doctor, who
had medically treated the victim and has issued the wound
certificate. The parties, who are neighbours have a civil
dispute between them and therefore, it cannot be said that
the accused did not have a knowledge that the first
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10515
HC-KAR
informant belonged to schedule caste or schedule tribe
category.
6. Section 3(1)(r) provides punishment for
intentionally insulting or intimidating with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe in any place within public view; and Section 3(1)(s)
provides punishment for abusing any member of a
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any
place within public view. In the first information itself, it is
mentioned that certain persons named in the first
information were present at the spot of crime and they had
rescued the first informant from the hands of accused
persons. Therefore, the act of abusing the first informant
referring to her caste and also intimidating her with an
intent to humiliate, had taken place, in a place within public
view and therefore, I do not find any merit in the contention
urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that the offences punishable under the provisions of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10515
HC-KAR
Atrocities) Act, has been wrongly invoked in the present
case.
7. In the first information, the victim has
specifically mentioned that, she belongs to Valmiki
community, which is a Scheduled Caste and the accused
belongs to Kuruba community, which is Upper Caste and
knowing very well that the victim belonged to Scheduled
Caste, the accused persons had formed themselves into an
unlawful assembly and had abused her referring to her
caste name and also assaulted her thereafter. Therefore,
the alleged offences under the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act squarely get
attracted in the present case. The same was not the
situation in the case of Sri Shailesh Kumar S/o.
Venkatesh L. (supra). Therefore, the judgment in the said
case is of no assistance to the petitioners and no reliance
can be placed on the same. It is trite that judgment can be
considered as precedent and relied upon only if the same is
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present
NC: 2025:KHC-D:10515
HC-KAR
case. Since as rightly contended by the learned HCGP, there
is a prima facie case as against the petitioners herein for
the charge sheeted offences, I am of the opinion that, this
is not a fit case for exercising the inherent powers of this
Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the
impugned criminal proceedings as against the petitioners.
Accordingly, the following:
ORDER
The Criminal Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY)
JUDGE
Vnp / CT: BCK
