[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Bheemashankar vs The State Of Karnataka on 12 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:162
CRL.A No. 200330 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 200330 OF 2025 (U/S 14 (A)
BETWEEN:
BHEEMASHANKAR
S/O. CHANDRASHEKAR YALAGI,
AGE 30 YEARS,
OCC. AGRICULTURE,
R/O WAJJAL VILLAGE, TQ HUNASAGI
DIST YADGIR.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI RAJESH DODDAMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
by HUNASAGI POLICE STATION,
SHIVALEELA YADGIRI DISTRICT.
DATTATRAYA NOW REPRESENTED BY THE
UDAGI ADDITIONAL STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
Location: HIGH HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
COURT OF KALABURAGI BENCH-585 102.
KARNATAKA
2. SRI AMRUT S/O. TIMMAYYA WADDAR
AGE 32 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O WAJJAL VILLAGE,
TQ HUNASAGI, DIST YADGIR-585 215.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT V/O DTD 07.01.2026)
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:162
CRL.A No. 200330 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS CRL.A IS FILED U/SEC. 14-A (1) OF SC/ST (PA)
ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF TAKING
COGNIZANCE DATED 23.07.2025 PASSED BY THE DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE YADGIRI SPL. C.125/2025 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 329(4), 352, 351(2) OF BNS 2023
AND U/S 3(1)(R)(S), 3(2)(V-A) OF SC/ST PA ACT 1989
(ARISING FROM CRIME NO. 63/2025 OF HUNASAGI POLICE
STATION, YADGIR DISTRICT IN SO FAR AS THE APPELLANT/ A-
1 IS CONCERNED, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
ORAL JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed under Section 14A(1) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 [for short, 'the SC/ST (POA) Act']
read with Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
Sanhita, 2023 [for short, 'the BNSS'] to quash the
proceedings in Spl.C.No.125/2025 arising out of Crime
No.63/2025 registered by Hunsagi Police Station, Yadgir
for the offences punishable under Sections 329(4), 352,
351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [for short, 'the
BNS'] and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST
NC: 2026:KHC-K:162
HC-KAR
(POA) Act, presently pending on the file of District &
Sessions Judge, Yadgir.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that, the uncle
of the complainant has registered a case against the elder
brother, father and other family members of the appellant-
accused for the offence punishable under Sections 366,
366A, 376, 306 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections
3(1)(xv), 3(1)(xii), 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (POA) Act in the year
2005. The said case came to be tried in Spl.C.No.34/2010
before the District & Sessions Judge, Yadgiri and acquitted
the accused vide order dated 18.04.2024.
3. Things stood thus, on 14.05.2025 when the
complainant and his wife were in house, the appellant-
accused allegedly trespassed the house by holding a
chopper and abused the complainant by mentioning his
caste and also tried to assault the complainant and his
wife, however, they escaped. As such, they filed the
complaint on 14.05.2025. Based on the said complaint,
NC: 2026:KHC-K:162
HC-KAR
FIR was registered in Crime No.63/2025 on the same day
for the aforementioned offences. Thereafter, the
Investigating Officer completed the investigation and laid
the charge-sheet against the appellant for the
aforementioned offences and the Special Judge took
cognizance of the aforementioned offences against the
appellant-accused. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant
filed the present appeal by challenging the cognizance
order dated 23.07.2025 and also against the continuation
of the proceedings.
4. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent-
State. Notice to respondent No.2 held sufficient vide Court
order dated 07.01.2026.
5. Apart from urging several contentions, learned
counsel for the appellant primarily contented that, on
perusal of the complaint averments, it is clear that a false
complaint foisted against this appellant in order to
NC: 2026:KHC-K:162
HC-KAR
implicate the appellant under the provisions of SC/ST
(POA) Act and also under BNS.
6. According to him, the earlier case filed by the
uncle of the complainant against the brother and other
family members of the appellant was acquitted on
18.04.2024. Thereafter, this alleged incident was caused
on 14.05.2025 i.e. after lapse of one year. Absolutely,
there was no such reason for the appellant to enter the
house of the complainant and threatened him for having
filed the earlier case.
7. Additionally he contended that the appellant is
a 'schizophrenia' patient. To substantiate the same, he
placed a medical certificate dated 26.08.2025 issued by
Psychiatrist. Accordingly, he submits there is a gross
misuse of the provisions of Special Enactment and
continuation of proceedings against the appellant is an
abuse of process of the Court. Accordingly, he prays to
allow the appeal.
NC: 2026:KHC-K:162
HC-KAR
8. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader vehemently opposed the appeal by contending
that the complainant and his family members have
witnessed the incident that the accused entered the house
by holding a deadly weapon and threatened the
complainant with dire consequences and also made an
attempt to assault the complainant and his wife. However,
they escaped from the assault. In such circumstances,
there is prima facie case made out against the appellant.
Accordingly, he prays to dismiss the appeal.
9. I have given my anxious consideration both on
the submission made by the learned counsel for the
respective parties so also perused the charge sheet
materials.
10. As could be gathered from records, the uncle of
the complainant lodged a complaint against the brother
and family members of the appellant on 26.10.2005 and
the same was registered in Crime No.109/2005 for the
NC: 2026:KHC-K:162
HC-KAR
offence punishable under Sections 366, 366(A), 376, 306
r/w 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(xv), 3(1)(xii), 3(2)(v) of
SC/ST (POA) Act. Though the said case was tried against
them, the same was acquitted vide judgment dated
18.04.2024 by the Special Court. According to the
complainant, since the uncle of the complainant lodged the
complaint against the family members of the appellant,
the appellant committed this incident. However, the
present incident is said to have occurred on 14.05.2025
i.e., after lapse of one year from the date of acquittal of
the accused in Special Case No.34/2010.
11. Additionally, on careful perusal of the complaint
averments and also the charge-sheet materials, except
omnibus allegations made against the appellant,
absolutely no such prima facie materials are placed to
prove that the appellant entered the house of complainant
and made an attempt to assault them with chopper.
Admittedly, the incident was occurred within four walls of
the house of complainant and not in the public view. The
NC: 2026:KHC-K:162
HC-KAR
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
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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:162
HC-KAR
"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:
"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
- 10 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:162
HC-KAR
other local body) or gaon sabha or an
instrumentality of the State, and not by
private persons or private bodies."
12. Additionally, the medical certificate produced by
the appellant reveals that the appellant is a
"SCHIZOPHRENIA" patient and to that effect the certificate
was issued by the concerned Psychiatrist. The material
witnesses are none other than the family members of the
complainant. It is settled position of law that, if the
complaint and other materials do not disclose any prima
facie offence and the same is filed on a frivolous,
vexatious and based on oppressive, the allegation set out
in the complaint do not constitute an offence which the
cognizance has taken by the Magistrate, it is open for this
Court to quash the proceedings. It is not that a meticulous
analysis of the case should be done before trial. If the
entire allegations taken on record, if the same do not
constitute an offence, then this Court has the power to
quash the criminal proceedings in order to meet the ends
of justice. In such circumstances, I am of the considered
- 11 -
NC: 2026:KHC-K:162
HC-KAR
view that the present proceedings initiated by the
complainant against the appellant deserves to be quashed.
Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
ORDER
i. The Criminal Appeal is allowed.
ii. The proceedings against the
appellant/accused in Spl.C.No.125/2025
arising out of Crime No.63/2025 registered
by Hunsagi Police Station, Yadgir for the
offences punishable under Sections 329(4),
352, 351(2) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita,
2023 [for short, 'the BNS'] and Section
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/ST
(POA) Act, presently pending on the file of
District & Sessions Judge, Yadgir is hereby
quashed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
SDU,MSR
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 21
CT:RJ
