[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Mahibub on 29 January, 2026
-1-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:689
CRL.RP No. 200161 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 200161 OF 2024
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS)
BETWEEN:
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH THE JALANAGAR POLICE STATION,
VIJAYAPURA.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP)
AND:
1. MAHIBUB S/O. MOHAMMED YUSUF DAKHANI
AGE 54 YEARS, OCC. MECHANIC
R/O J.M.ROAD, VIJAYAPURA.
Digitally signed
by
SHIVALEELA 2. SMT. RUPA W/O. SATISH INCHAGERI
DATTATRAYA AGE 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSE WIFE
UDAGI R/O VIVEKNAGAR WEST, VIJAYAPURA.
Location: HIGH ...RESPONDENTS
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S 438 OF BNSS, PLEASED TO
SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2022, PASSED BY THE II
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT VIJAYAPURA
IN SPL.C. (SC AND ST) NO.18/2022.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
-2-
NC: 2026:KHC-K:689
CRL.RP No. 200161 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
This revision petition is directed against the order
dated 31.12.2022 passed in Spl.C.(SC & ST) No.18/2022
by the II-Addl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Vijayapura (for
short, 'learned Special Judge'), whereby the learned
Sessions Judge allowed the application filed by the
respondent-accused No.4 under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and
discharged the respondent No.1 herein i.e. accused No.4
for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427, 323,
324, 354, 355, 504, 506, 307 and 363 r/w Section 34 of
IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of SC & ST (Prevention of
Atrocity) Amendment Act, 2015, in connection with Crime
No.103/2021 of Jalanagar Police, Vijayapura.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that, the
respondent No.1 herein i.e., accused No.4 and accused
Nos.1 to 3 belonging to Muslim Community and
complainant/respondent No.2 belongs to Scheduled Caste.
Respondent No.2 and accused Nos.2 & 3 are staying in two
separate rented houses belonging to accused No.4 and an
NC: 2026:KHC-K:689
HC-KAR
ill will developed between respondent No.2 and accused
No.3 regarding sweeping of garbage in front of their house.
As such, accused Nos.1 to 3 have been pressurizing
accused No.4 to vacate respondent No.2 from his rented
house. Accordingly, accused No.4 insisted respondent No.2
to vacate her house.
3. Things stood thus, on 20.12.2021 when
respondent No.2 dumped garbage in front of her house,
accused No.3 came there and abused her in filthy language
and called accused Nos.1 and 2. Immediately, they came to
the spot and accused Nos.1 to 3 illegally trespassed the
house of respondent No.2 by breaking open the door and
pulled her hands, legs and clothes and also assaulted her.
Due to which, she sustained injuries.
4. It is further allegation that accused No.4 also
abused her in filthy language by mentioning her caste. As
such, she lodged the complaint before the Jalanagara Police
Station, Vijayapura. On the strength of said complaint, FIR
came to be registered in Crime No.103/2021 for the
NC: 2026:KHC-K:689
HC-KAR
aforementioned offences. Subsequently, the petitioner-
Police investigated the case and laid charge-sheet against
accused Nos.1 to 4 by arraying the respondent No.1 as
accused No.4. The learned Special Judge took cognizance
of the offences. Hence, the case is set up for trial. At that
time, respondent No.1-accused No.4 filed a discharge
application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. before the learned
Special Judge.
5. After assessment of the materials available on
record, the learned Special Judge allowed the said
application and thereby discharged respondent No.1 i.e.
accused No.4 for the aforementioned offences. The said
order has been challenged by the State before this Court.
6. Heard learned High Court Government Pleader
for the petitioner-State.
7. Apart from urging several contentions, learned
High Court Government Pleader primarily contented that
the learned Special Judge discharged the accused
NC: 2026:KHC-K:689
HC-KAR
No.4/respondent No.1 by relying on the CCTV footage and
the letter issued by the Depot Manager, stating that the
accused No.4 was working in the Depot-KKRTC at
Vijayapura. According to him, CCTV footage and the letter
are not the part of charge-sheet materials. In such
circumstances, the Trial Court ought not have discharged
the accused. According to him, the charge-sheet materials
are not appreciated by the learned Special Judge in a right
perspective. Accordingly, he prays to allow the petition.
8. I have given my anxious consideration both on
the submissions made by the learned High Court
Government Pleader and the documents available on
record.
9. As could be gathered from records, the alleged
incident was occurred on 20.12.2021 near the house of
respondent No.2. It is the specific case of prosecution that
accused Nos.2 and 3 are the neighbours of respondent
No.2 and both respondent No.2 and themselves residing in
a rented house of accused No.4. There was a quarrel in
NC: 2026:KHC-K:689
HC-KAR
respect to sweeping of garbage in front of their house
between accused Nos.1 to 3 and respondent No.2. The
charge-sheet allegations reveals that accused Nos.1 to 3
allegedly trespassed the house of respondent No.2 and
manhandled her by outraging her modesty. The allegation
against respondent No.1/accused No.4 is that, he being the
owner of the house, visited the spot subsequently and
abused respondent No.2 by mentioning her caste.
10. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 is
working as a Head Mechanic in KKRTC, Vijayapura Depot.
The Depot Manager of the said Depot issued a letter and
also the CCTV footages and the same were submitted by
accused No.4 before the Investigating Officer. However,
the Investigating Officer did not collect the same and
placed it along with the charge-sheet materials. The
impugned order clearly depicts that, on perusal of the
certificate and the CCTV footages, respondent
No.1/accused No.4 was on duty till 03:00 p.m. on
20.12.2021 in KKRTC Depot, Vijayapura. In such
NC: 2026:KHC-K:689
HC-KAR
circumstances, the presence of respondent No.1 in the
house, as alleged by respondent No.2 cannot be believed.
11. Further, the alleged incident took place in the
house of respondent No.2. In such circumstances, the
provisions of SC/ST Act, does not attract and offences are
not made out against the accused No.4 since, the same is
not 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 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,
NC: 2026:KHC-K:689
HC-KAR
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:
"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
NC: 2026:KHC-K:689
HC-KAR
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. In such circumstances, applying the findings of
the above judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court to the facts
and circumstances of this case, in my considered view, the
learned Special Judge has dealt the matter in a right
perspective and interference in the impugned order does
not call for.
14. Accordingly, the revision petition lacks merit
and the same is dismissed.
Sd/-
(RAJESH RAI K)
JUDGE
SDU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 2
CT:RJ
