[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Irfan Ali vs The State Of Karnataka on 3 February, 2026

                                              -1-
                                                           NC: 2026:KHC-K:918
                                                     CRL.P No. 201890 of 2025


                   HC-KAR




                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

                                     KALABURAGI BENCH

                         DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

                                            BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
                            CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201890 OF 2025
                                    (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)
                   BETWEEN:
                   1. IRFAN ALI S/O. WAHEED ALI K.K
                      AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
                      OCC. AGRICULTURE ADMINISTRATOR,
                      R/AT NEAR UKKADA POLICE STATION
                      KADECHUR,
                      TQ AND DIST YADGIRI-585201.

                   2.  MAHESH PATIL S/O HEMAREDDY
                       AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
                       OCC. VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT KURDI HOBLI
                       NOW WORKING AT TAHASIL OFFICE MANVI,
                       R/AT DUGANOOR VILLAGE,
                       TQ AND DIST RAICHUR-584101.
Digitally signed                                           ...PETITIONERS
by SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA         (BY SRI BASAVARAJ C. JAKA., ADVOCATE)
UDAGI
Location: HIGH     AND:
COURT OF           1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
KARNATAKA             THROUGH MANVI POLICE STATION
                      DIST. RAICHUR-584123.
                      NEW REPRESENTED BY ADDL SPP
                      HIGH COURT KARNATAKA
                      KALABURAGI BENCH-585107.

                   2.   SRI YALLESH
                        S/O BHEEMAYYA @ YARAYYA
                        AGE 43 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE,
                        R/AT AROLI VILLAGE, TQ MANVI,
                                 -2-
                                              NC: 2026:KHC-K:918
                                        CRL.P No. 201890 of 2025


HC-KAR




    DIST. RAICHUR-584 123.

                                                   ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)

     THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. (OLD), U/SEC.
528 OF BNSS (NEW), PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION AND
QUASH     THE   PROCEEDINGS      IN   SPL.(AC).NO.482/2024
PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE AT
RAICHUR, ARISING OUT OF IN CRIME NO.169/2024,
REGISTERED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT MANVI POLICE
STATION, DIST-RAICHUR, AGAINST THE PETITIONERS AND
FILED CHARGE SHEET FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/S 409, 420 OF
IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(g), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST PA ACT AGAINST
PETITIONER NO.1 AND U/S 409, 420, 504 R/W 34 OF IPC AND
SEC.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(g), 3(2)(va) OF SC/ST PA ACT
AGAINST 2ND PETITIONER, TO SECURE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE
AND TO PREVENT ABUSE OF PROCESS OF THE Court.

    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 criminal petition is filed under Section 528 of

Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 to quash the

proceedings against the petitioners in

Spl.(AC)No.482/2024 (arising out of Crime No.169/2024

registered by Manvi Police Station, Raichur), on the file of

I-Addl. Sessions Judge, Raichur, for the offences

NC: 2026:KHC-K:918

HC-KAR

punishable under Sections 409, 420, 504, 34 of IPC and

Sections 3(1)(r) (s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of

Atrocities) Amendment Act, 2015.

2. The factual matrix of the case is that, on

17.03.1995 Dr.B.R.Ambedkar Development Board has

allotted 2 acres of land in Sy.No.104/*/14 situated at

Kuradi village in the name of mother of the complainant.

On the basis of same, the revenue records were entered in

her name and since from the allotment, she was in

possession and cultivation of the same.

3. On 13.09.2022, accused No.1 (as per charge-

sheet) one Bajaramma filed an application before accused

Nos.2 and 3 i.e. petitioners herein, i.e. they are Revenue

Inspector and Village Accountant respectively, for change

of khata of the said property in the revenue records.

Accordingly, her name was entered in the revenue

records.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:918

HC-KAR

4. Subsequently, accused No.1-Bajaramma came

to know that the land was wrongly mutated in her name.

Therefore, she orally approached the revenue authority for

cancellation of the mutation entry. Then, authorities

suggested that they are not having authority to cancel the

same and advised her to approach the Assistant

Commissioner for cancellation of the mutation.

5. Therefore, on 16.11.2022 accused No.1-

Bajaramma filed an application before the Assistant

Commissioner to cancel the mutation entry. But no order

has been passed by the Assistant Commissioner on the

application and the Name of accused No.1 continued in the

revenue records.

6. Later, the complainant came to know about the

wrong entry of mutation in the name of accused No.1 and

immediately complainant approached and requested

Tahsildar, Manvi and Revenue Inspector to restore his

mother's name in the revenue records. But, none of them

responded.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:918

HC-KAR

7. It is further alleged that on 20.07.2024 at about

12:45 p.m. the complainant went to rented room of

accused No.3 to enquire about the mutation, at that time,

accused No.3 abused the complainant by taking the name

of his caste and pushed him by holding his shirt.

Thereafter, the complainant lodged the complaint against

petitioners and accused No.1. Based on the complaint, the

respondent-police registered the case in Crime

No.169/2024 for the aforementioned offences. Thereafter,

the respondent-police investigated the case and laid

charge-sheet against the accused persons by arraying the

petitioners as accused Nos.2 and 3. Learned Magistrate

took the cognizance of the offence. Being aggrieved by the

same, the present petition.

8. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and

the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent

No.1-State. Respondent No.2 though served,

unrepresented.

NC: 2026:KHC-K:918

HC-KAR

9. Apart from urging several contentions, the

learned counsel for the petitioners primarily contented that

petitioners No.1 is the Revenue Inspector and petitioner

No.2 is the Village Accountant and they were nowhere

connected to the alleged incident. According to the learned

counsel, accused No.1 was wrongly filed an application to

enter her name in the revenue records in respect of land

belongs to the complainant's mother and subsequently she

filed an application to rectify the same. At that time, it was

suggested by accused Nos.2 and 3 to approach the

Assistant Commissioner by filing an appeal, since that

power was vested with them. Despite a false complaint

has been lodged against these petitioners under the

provisions of SC/ST Act. Hence, he prays to allow the

petition.

10. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader opposed the prayer on the ground that now that

charge-sheet has been laid against the petitioners and

NC: 2026:KHC-K:918

HC-KAR

there are statements of witnesses available on record for

the act committed by these petitioners.

11. As could be gathered from the records, in

respect to the land bearing Sy.No.104/*/14 situated at

Kuradi village, though allotted in the name of

complainant's mother and when she was in possession,

mistakenly accused No.1 filed an application for change of

khata in her name. Based on the application, accused

Nos.2 and 3 changed the khata. Later, accused No.1 filed

an application to rectify the mistake. However, it was

informed by accused Nos.2 and 3 that she has to approach

the Assistant Commissioner and accordingly she filed an

appeal before the Assistant Commissioner. The said appeal

was allowed and the mistake was rectified by re-entering

the name of complainant's mother.

12. The allegation against these petitioners is that

they being the Revenue Inspector and Village Accountant

abused the complainant by mentioning his caste name in a

room. As such, it is clear that the alleged offence

NC: 2026:KHC-K:918

HC-KAR

committed not in the public view or any place within the

public view.

13. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh

Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another reported

in (2020) 10 SCC 710 held that 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 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

NC: 2026:KHC-K:918

HC-KAR

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

- 10 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:918

HC-KAR

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:

"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."

- 11 -

NC: 2026:KHC-K:918

HC-KAR

15. It is admitted case of the complainant that

accused No.3 was abused him by mentioning his caste

name in the room. When only both were there in the

room, as per allegation against accused No.2 that, he

mistakenly changed the mutation entry in the name of

accused No.1 based on the application and subsequently,

accused No.1 in turn filed an application to rectify the

mistake. In such circumstances, there are no offences

made out against the petitioners for the offence they have