[Cites 22, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Balappa @ Amateppa vs The State Of Karnataka on 2 February, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:841
CRL.P No. 201599 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201599 OF 2025
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
1. BALAPPA @ AMATEPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA PUJARI
AGE 45 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
2. PARAMANNA S/O. SIDDAPPA PUJARI
AGE 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
3. NAGAPPA S/O. SIDDAPPA PUJARI
AGE 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
ALL R/O BACHIMATTI VILLAGE
TQ. HUNASAGI, DIST. YADGIR - 585 215.
Digitally signed
by SHIVALEELA ...PETITIONERS
DATTATRAYA (BY SRI SANJAY A PATIL, ADVOCATE)
UDAGI
Location: HIGH AND:
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SHORAPUR POLICE STATION,
SHORAPUR SUB-DIVISION,
DIST.YADGIR - 585210.
R/BY ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH - 585107.
2. SMT. SHANTA W/O. PARAMANNA DODDAMANI
AGE 32 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEMAKER
R/O BONAL VILLAGE, TQ. SHORAPUR
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:841
CRL.P No. 201599 of 2025
HC-KAR
DIST.YADGIR - 585210.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI PUNITH MARKAL, ADV. FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF
CR.P.C.(OLD), U/S 528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO QUASH
ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ACCUSED
NO.1 TO 3 RESPECTIVELY IN SPL. C NO.96/2025 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT YADGIR,
DISTRICT YADGIR ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.64/2025
REGISTERED BY SHORAPUR POLICE STATION DISTRICT
YADGIR FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 115(2), 352,
351(2), 74, R/W SEC.3(5) OF BNS-2023 AND
SEC.3(1)(r)(s)(w), 3(2) (v-a) OF SC/ST PA ACT, 1989 ON ITS
FILE.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL ORDER
This petition is filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking to quash the
proceedings against the petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in
Spl.C.No.96/2025, arising out of Crime No.64/2025
registered by Shorapur Police Station, for the offences
punishable under Sections 115(2), 352, 351(2), 74 r/w
Section 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [for, 'the
NC: 2026:KHC-K:841
HC-KAR
BNS, 2023] and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v-
a) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act, 1989 [for brevity, 'the SC/ST (PO/A)
Act'], pending on the file of District and Sessions Judge at
Yadgir.
2. The abridged facts of the case are that,
respondent No.2 filed private complaint under Section 223
of BNSS, 2023, before the District and Sessions Judge,
Yadgir against six accused persons on 11.02.2025 by
arraying these petitioners as accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 in
P.C.No.3/2025. It is alleged in the complaint that the land
bearing Sy.No.120/A measuring 16 acres 12 guntas was
sold to Bheemappa i.e., father-in-law of respondent No.2
by its original owner Ningappa. Ever since, respondent
No.2 and her family members were in possession.
However, there was a civil dispute between the wife of
Ningappa and respondent No.2 in Regular First Appeal
before this Court.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:841
HC-KAR
3. Things stood thus, on 23.12.2024, when
respondent No.2 and her family members were working in
their agricultural land as stated supra, at about 4:30 p.m.
the accused persons including these petitioners, by
forming an unlawful assembly, trespassed into the land
and questioned respondent No.2 as to why she was
engaged in agricultural work in the said land, since the
same belongs to them. During the altercation, accused
No.1 assaulted respondent No.2 and accused Nos.3 and 4
abused her by mentioning her caste and also they made
an attempt to outrage her modesty. As such, she
approached the Police to lodge the complaint against
them. However, the same was not received and registered
by the Police. Subsequently, she lodged the private
complaint in P.C.No.3/2025 as stated supra. The learned
Magistrate, after registering the private complaint,
referred the matter to the jurisdictional Police i.e.,
respondent No.1-Police for investigation under Section
156(3) of Cr.P.C./175 (1) of BNSS, 2023. Accordingly,
NC: 2026:KHC-K:841
HC-KAR
respondent No.1-Police registered the case in Crime
No.64/2025 for the offences punishable under Sections
189(2), 191(2), 191(3), 329(3), 352, 351(2), 74, 115(2)
and 118(1) r/w Section 190 of BNS, 2023 and Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(1)(g) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST
(POA) Act and investigated the matter and laid charge
sheet against these petitioners as accused Nos.1 to 3 for
the offences punishable under Sections 115(2), 352,
351(2), 74 read with Section 3(5) of BNS, 2023 and
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST
(POA) Act, by dropping the other accused. Accordingly, the
learned Special Judge took cognizance of the offences.
Aggrieved by the same, this petition is filed to quash the
proceedings.
4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners,
learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High
Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 - State.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:841
HC-KAR
5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned
counsel for the petitioners contended that, there is an
inordinate delay of 49 days in lodging the complaint.
Further, it is specifically stated in the complaint that there
is a civil dispute pending between the petitioners and
respondent No.2 before this Court in Regular First Appeal.
Apart from that, as per the private complaint, these
accused persons assaulted and outraged the modesty of
respondent No.2. However, respondent No.1 - Police have
laid charge sheet only against these three petitioners. In
such circumstances, it is clear that, out of vengeance
respondent No.2 filed a false complaint against these
petitioners by misusing the provisions of SC/ST (POA) Act.
Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.2
vehemently contended that, though respondent No.2 has
approached the jurisdictional Police immediately after the
incident, the said Police have failed to register the case by
receiving her complaint, as such, she waited for a period
NC: 2026:KHC-K:841
HC-KAR
of 49 days and later, she filed the private complaint. She
also contended that the statement of witnesses
categorically establishes the commission of the offences.
The respondent No.1 - Police also filed a Call Detail
Register to substantiate that present in the alleged spot on
the date of incident. Hence, after detailed investigation,
respondent No.1 - Police have laid the charge sheet
against these petitioners. In such circumstances, he prays
to dismiss the petition.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for respondent No.1-State opposed the petition
stating that there are specific allegations against these
petitioners in the private complaint and also in the charge
sheet materials. Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the
petition.
8. I have given my anxious consideration both on
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
NC: 2026:KHC-K:841
HC-KAR
respective parties and perused the documents made
available on record.
9. As could be gathered from charge sheet
materials, according to respondent No.2, the alleged
incident was caused on 23.12.2024 when she was
engaged in the agricultural activities in her field. At that
time, six accused persons trespassed into the field and
questioned her and thereafter assaulted her and outraged
her modesty by mentioning her caste. Admittedly, the
private complaint was filed after a lapse of 49 days i.e., on
11.02.2025. Though it is stated in the private complaint
that, after the incident she approached the Police and
lodged the complaint, however, no complaint or
documents or statements were placed by her to
substantiate that she approached the Police after the
incident except stating the same in her affidavit. Further,
on perusal of the complaint averments, it is clearly stated
in para-7 of the complaint that there is a civil dispute
NC: 2026:KHC-K:841
HC-KAR
between the wife of late Ningappa and respondent No.2
pending before this Court in Regular First Appeal.
10. Further, on perusal of the statement of
respondent No.2 and other witnesses, omnibus allegations
are made against these petitioners that they along with
the other accused trespassed into the property and made
attempt to assault and outrage her modesty. No wound
certificate is placed by her to substantiate that due to the
assault, she sustained injuries. Further, though it is stated
in the complaint that accused Nos.1 to 6 were present at
the scene of occurrence, the other accused are not charge
sheeted by respondent No.1 - Police. Nevertheless, the
private complaint is not supported by the list of witnesses
and detailed affidavit. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Priyanka Srivastava and Another vs. State of U.P.
and Others reported in 2015 (5) SCC 287 held that the
private complaint shall contain detailed affidavit of the
complainant and also mentioning the nature of the
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:841
HC-KAR
incident and the documents to that effect and also the list
of witnesses and documents.
11. In the instant case, except verifying affidavit,
no such detailed affidavit is forthcoming along with the
private complaint and admittedly no such list of witnesses
is filed by respondent No.2 while filing the private
complaint. Moreover, the incident said to have been
caused in the disputed field of accused No.1 and
respondent No.2, in order to attract the provisions of
Section 3(1) of the SC/ST (PA) Act, the incident must be
caused in the public place and in any place within the
public view.
12. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh
Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and Another reported in
(2020) 10 SCC 710, held in paragraph Nos.13 and 14 as
under:
"13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of
the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional
insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:841
HC-KAR
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled
Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will
not be an offence under the Act unless such insult
or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of
the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions
of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes
as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an
offence under the Act would be made out when a
member of the vulnerable section of the Society is
subjected to indignities, humiliations and
harassment. The assertion of title over the land by
either of the parties is not due to either the
indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every
citizen has a right to avail their remedies in
accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or
his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the
civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the
jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are
availing their remedies in accordance with the
procedure established by law. Such action is not for
the reason that respondent No.2 is member of
Scheduled Caste.
14. Another key ingredient of the provision is
insult or intimidation in "any place within public
view". What is to be regarded as "place in public
view" had come up for consideration before this
Court in the judgment reported as Swaran Singh &
Ors. v. State through Standing Counsel & Ors. The
Court had drawn distinction between the expression
"public place" and "in any place within public view".
It was held that if an offence is committed outside
the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house, and the
lawn can be seen by someone from the road or
lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn
would certainly be a place within the public view.
On the contrary, if the remark is made inside a
building, but some members of the public are there
(not merely relatives or friends) then it would not
be an offence since it is not in the public view. The
Court held as under:
- 12 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:841
HC-KAR
"28. It has been alleged in the FIR
that Vinod Nagar, the first informant, was
insulted by Appellants 2 and 3 (by calling
him a "chamar") when he stood near the
car which was parked at the gate of the
premises. In our opinion, this was
certainly a place within public view, since
the gate of a house is certainly a place
within public view. It could have been a
different matter had the alleged offence
been committed inside a building, and
also was not in the public view. However,
if the offence is committed outside the
building e.g. in a lawn outside a house,
and the lawn can be seen by someone
from the road or lane outside the
boundary wall, the lawn would certainly
be a place within the public view. Also,
even if the remark is made inside a
building, but some members of the public
are there (not merely relatives or friends)
then also it would be an offence since it is
in the public view. We must, therefore,
not confuse the expression "place within
public view" with the expression "public
place". A place can be a private place but
yet within the public view. On the other
hand, a public place would ordinarily
mean a place which is owned or leased by
the Government or the municipality (or
other local body) or gaon sabha or an
instrumentality of the State, and not by
private persons or private bodies."
13. On overall perusal of the averments in the
complaint and the statement of witnesses, it could be
gathered that, in order to give a criminal colour to the civil
- 13 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:841
HC-KAR
dispute arising between the parties, a false complaint has
been foisted against the petitioners. On over all perusal of
the materials on record, I am of the considered view that
continuation of criminal proceedings against the
petitioners is clear abuse of process of Court since the
same is manifestly frivolous, vexatious and instituted with
the ulterior motive for wrecking vengeance. The entire
allegation in the FIR and charge sheet accepted on its face
value, even then, the same do not prima facie constitute
an offences charge sheeted against the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3. Accordingly, I proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed.
ii. The proceedings against the
petitioners/accused Nos.1 to 3 in
Spl.C.No.96/2025, arising out of Crime
No.64/2025 registered by Shorapur
Police Station, for the offences
punishable under Sections 115(2), 352,
351(2), 74 r/w Section 3(5) of Bharatiya
- 14 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:841
HC-KAR
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v-a) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,
pending on the file of District and
Sessions Judge at Yadgir, is hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
SWK
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23
CT-RJ
