Karnataka High Court

Vasudev Yashwant Shanbhag vs Parameshwari Devu Mukri on 3 July, 2025

                                              -1-
                                                         NC: 2025:KHC-D:8369
                                                      WP No. 101578 of 2022


                   HC-KAR




                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                            DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF JULY, 2025

                                           BEFORE
                          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

                        WRIT PETITION NO. 101578 OF 2022 (GM-RES)

                   BETWEEN:

                   1.   VASUDEV YASHWANT SHANBHAG,
                        AGE: 63 YEARS,
                        OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
                        R/O. MELINAKERI,
                        HEGDE, TQ. KUMTA,
                        DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581341.

                   2.   GAJANAN YASHWANT SHANBHAG,
                        AGE: 58 YEARS,
                        OCC: AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
                        R/O. MELINAKERI,
                        HEGDE, TQ. KUMTA,
                        DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581341.
Digitally signed
by RAKESH S
HARIHAR            3.   YASHWANT VASUDEV SHANBHAG,
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka,
                        AGE: 35 YEARS,
Dharwad Bench
                        OCC. AGRICULTURE AND BUSINESS,
                        R/O. MELINAKERI,
                        HEGDE, TQ. KUMTA,
                        DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581341.
                                                              ...PETITIONERS
                   (BY SHRI MAHESH WODEYAR, ADVOCATE)

                   AND:

                   1.   PARAMESHWAR DEVU MUKRI,
                        AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: TAILOR,
                              -2-
                                           NC: 2025:KHC-D:8369
                                      WP No. 101578 of 2022


HC-KAR




     R/O. VIVEKNAGAR, KUMTA,
     DIST. UTTARA KANNADA-581343.

2.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
     BY KUMTA POLICE,
     REP. BY ADDL. SPP,
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
     DHARWAD BENCH-580011.

                                               ...RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI JAIRAM SIDDI, HCGP FOR R1;
    SHRI ABHISHEK L. KALLED, ADV. FOR R2)


      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, R/W. SECTION 482
CR.P.C, PRAYING TO A WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASH THE COMPLAINT DATED
14.02.2022 BEARING PCR NO.1/2022 ON THE FILE OF IIND
ADDL. DIST. SESSION JUDGE UTTAR KANNADA KARWAR AND
THE FIR DATED 22.02.2022 REGISTERED BY THE KUMTA
POLICE     IN   CRIME   NO.37/2022     FOR    THE   OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE      U/S.3(II)   OF     SC/ST     (PREVENTION   OF
ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT 2015 AND FOR OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE U/S. 504,506 R/W. 34 IPC VIDE ANNEXURE-A & B
AND ETC.


      THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
                            -3-
                                       NC: 2025:KHC-D:8369
                                   WP No. 101578 of 2022


HC-KAR




                     ORAL ORDER

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T)

1. The petitioners have filed this petition under

Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for

short, 'Cr.P.C.') praying to quash the further proceedings

in Crime No.37/2022 of Kumta Police Station, for the

offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short,

'IPC') and Section 3(II) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [for

short, 'SC/ST (POA) Act'] pending on the file of the

Additional District and Sessions Court, Uttara Kannada,

Karwar District.

2. Heard the arguments of Sri.Mahesh Wadeyar,

learned counsel for the petitioners-accused, Sri.Abhishek

L. Kalled, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and

Sri.Jairam Siddi, learned High Court Government Pleader

for respondent No.2-State and perused the material on

record.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8369

HC-KAR

3. The brief facts of the prosecution case are as

under:

Respondent No.1-complainant has filed a private

complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C., before the

learned Sessions Judge, Karwar, against the petitioners

alleging that the petitioners are forcefully and illegally

entered the place of the complainant's property, stored

mud, and also removed the stones from the compound

wall of the complainant. They abused respondent No.1-

Complainant in filthy language by taking his caste and also

threatened to eliminate him.

4. Hence, he lodged a private complaint before the

learned Sessions Judge. In turn, the learned Sessions

Judge referred the matter to the jurisdictional Police under

Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. for investigation and report.

Based on the reference complaint, the jurisdictional police

registered the case in Crime No.37/2022 for the aforesaid

offences and took up investigation. Taking exception to

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8369

HC-KAR

the same, the petitioners have filed this petition for

quashement of the entire FIR and complaint.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has

contended that the allegations made against the

petitioners is afterthought, so as to falsely implicate them,

there is a delay in lodging the complaint, but delay has not

been properly explained by the complainant. The dispute

pertains to a survey in respect of the disputed property.

6. Learned counsel places reliance upon the

decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of HITESH

VERMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANOTHER1

(HITESH VERMA) and prayed for allowing the petition.

7. Learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.2-State and learned counsel for respondent

No.2-de facto complainant have contended that there is

prima-facie material against the petitioners to attract the

AIR 2020 SC 5584

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8369

HC-KAR

provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The petitioners

intentionally insulted the complainant to provoke his

breach of peace and also made criminal intimidation to

eliminate him by taking his caste. Hence, he prayed to

dismiss the petition.

8. On perusal of the private complaint and FIR, it

is revealed that, the complainant made allegations that on

02.02.2022 at about 11.00 a.m., accused Nos.1 to 3, took

quarreled with the de facto complainant, abused the

complainant by taking up his caste, intentionally insulted

him to provoke his breach of peace and also made criminal

intimidation to eliminate him.

9. Admittedly, the incident occurred on

23.01.2022 and 02.02.2022. The complaint was lodged

only on 14.02.2022. Hence, there is a delay of 12 days in

lodging the complaint and the delay has not been properly

explained by the complainant.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8369

HC-KAR

10. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that

the incident alleged to have been taken place in the house

of complainant and it is not at public place. Hence, he

relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

case of HITESH VERMA (supra), wherein at paragraph

Nos.15 and 18, it has held as under:

"15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the informant were within the four walls of her building. It is not the case of the informant that there was any member of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient that the words were uttered "in any place within public view" is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could not be said that those were the persons present within the four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran Singh, it cannot be said to be a place within public view as none was said to be present within the four walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet.

XXX XXX XXX

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

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8369

HC-KAR

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."

11. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for

the petitioners, there is a civil litigation between the

parties and O.S.No.81/2013 was filed by the complainant

against the petitioner, and the same was dismissed. Being

aggrieved by the judgment and decreed passed in

O.S.No.81/2013, the complainant preferred appeal in RFA

No.37/2020 before the learned Senior Civil Judge Kumta,

and the same was also dismissed. Again, the complainant

filed an original suit in O.S.No.10/2022 against the

petitioners for the relief of declaration, possession and

injunction. Therefore, the offence under SC/ST (POA) Act

is not established merely on the fact that the complainant

is a member of schedule caste, unless there must be an

intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or

Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to

schedule caste.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8369

HC-KAR

12. In the present case, the parties are litigating

over possession as well as title 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 Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal

Petition No.4384/2023 dated 12-7-2023 observed that

there is a civil litigation between the parties and the

allegations made in the complaint is purely civil in nature.

Under such circumstances, the Court has to quash the

proceedings in view of the ratio laid down in the case of

HITESH VERMA (supra).

14. Whereas, in the instant case, the contents of

complaint appears that the dispute between the parties is

purely civil in nature, however, he has been given a

criminal texture, so as to circumvent the petitioners from

claiming the subject matter of civil litigation.

- 10 -

NC: 2025:KHC-D:8369

HC-KAR

15. In the instant case, the complainant has made

allegations that the petitioners abused him in filthy

language by taking up his caste name, intentionally

insulted him to provoke his breach of peace and also made

criminal intimidation to eliminate him and he also

contended that it is public place. However, on perusal of

the contents of the complaint, it appears that those

allegations are general and omnibus in nature. Hence, the

petitioners are made out the case to quash the FIR.

Accordingly, I proceeds to pass the following:

ORDER

i. The petition is allowed.

ii. The entire proceedings initiated against the

petitioners in Crime No.37/2022 arising out

of PCR No.01/2022, for the aforesaid

offences, pending on the file of the Additional

District and Sessions Court, Uttara Kannada,

Karwar District, is hereby quashed.