Karnataka High Court
Jagadish vs The State Of Karnataka on 16 June, 2025
Author: V. Srishananda
Bench: V. Srishananda
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3085
CRL.RP No. 200021 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.200021/2025
(397(Cr.PC)/438(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
JAGADISH S/O SHARANAPPA PATIL,
AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O SANNUR VILLAGE,
TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI-585 102.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI JADHAV BABURAO AMBARAO, ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by SUMITRA
SHERIGAR AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH UNIVERSITY P.S.,
KALABURAGI,
REPRESENTED BY
ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
KALABURAGI BENCH-585 106.
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3085
CRL.RP No. 200021 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. AKASH S/O DASHARATH RATHOD,
AGE: 20 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O SANNUR TANDA,
TQ. & DIST. KALABURAGI-585 102.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI VEERANAGOUDA M. MALIPATIL, HCGP, FOR R1;
R2-SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 438 R/W. SECTION 442 OF BNSS,
PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 18.01.2025
PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE,
KALABURAGI, IN SPL. CASE (SC/ST) NO.34/2024 AND
DISCHARGE THE PETITIONER/ACCUSED NO.1 FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 109 OF IPC AND
UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(v) OF SC/ST P.A. ACT.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA)
1. Heard learned counsel Sri Jadhav Baburao
Ambarao for the revision petitioner and learned High Court
Government Pleader Sri Veeranagouda M. Malipatil, for the
respondent No.1 – State.
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3085
CRL.RP No. 200021 of 2025
HC-KAR
2. The second respondent is served with the notice
and remained absent.
3. The petitioner herein is accused No.1 in respect
of the charge-sheet that has been filed pursuant to the
complaint lodged by respondent No.2, which was
registered in Crime No.25/2024. As per the charge-sheet,
the present petitioner is the person who instigated
accused Nos.2 to 7 to commit the offences punishable
under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 323, 324, 307, 504,
506, 109 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act (for short ‘SC/ST(PoA) Act’).
4. Petitioner after obtaining the bail, filed an
application under Section 250 of BNSS (227 of Cr.P.C.)
seeking of his discharge from the pending criminal case on
the ground that at the time of alleged incident, he was not
present in the place of incident and he was in hotel Kamal.
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3085
CRL.RP No. 200021 of 2025
HC-KAR
5. The learned Trial Judge after entertaining the
objections of the prosecution, dismissed the application
filed under Section 250 of BNSS by considered order dated
18.12.2025. Being aggrieved by the same, petitioner is
before this Court.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating
the grounds urged in the petition, vehemently contented
that during the course of investigation, after the petitioner
specifically stated before the Investigating Officer that he
was not at all present at the place of incident, collected
the CCTV footage from hotel Kamal to test the veracity of
the statement made by accused No.1 and despite the
same, the Investigating Officer has filed a charge-sheet
against the present accused also for the aforesaid offences
and thus there is an abuse of process of law in and sought
for quashing the pending proceedings against the
petitioner.
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3085
CRL.RP No. 200021 of 2025
HC-KAR
7. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader supports the filing of the charge-sheet and
rejection of the discharge application by contending that
the voluntary statement given by the present petitioner
coupled with the other material collected by the
investigation agency would make it clear that the incident
has occurred solely at the instigation of the present
petitioner and therefore, the present petitioner is also
liable for all the charges leveled against him and thus,
sought for dismissal of the petition.
8. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this
Court perused the material on record meticulously. On
such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear
that the investigation agency has collected the CCTV
footage from hotel Kamal on the day of incident.
9. As could be seen from the CCTV footage, the
petitioner herein, who is accused No.1, was seen in the
said CCTV footage at the relevant date and time.
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3085
CRL.RP No. 200021 of 2025
HC-KAR
10. At the most, the prosecution may be successful
in establishing the charge that petitioner has abetted the
offence committed by accused Nos.2 to 7. The same is to
be decided after the full-fledged trial.
11. Prima facie, there is no material on record
which would attract the offences punishable under Section
3(1)(r) & (s) coupled with Sections 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST
(PoA) Act as against the petitioner is concerned.
12. Accordingly, a case is made out by the
petitioner seeking his discharge from the aforesaid
provisions of SC/ST (PoA) Act.
13. However, with regard to the remaining offences
under the Indian Penal Code, since the offence under
Section 109 of IPC is invoked, the same needs to be
established during the course of trial.
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-K:3085
CRL.RP No. 200021 of 2025
HC-KAR
14. Accordingly, the petitioner has to face the trial
for the offence under Section 109 of Indian Penal Code
coupled with other offences. Hence, the following:
ORDER
i. The petition is allowed in part.
ii. The petitioner is discharged from the
charge of offence punishable under
Section 3(1)(r) & (s) and 3(2)(va) of
ST/ST (PoA) Act.
iii. In respect of the rest of the offences,
the trial to continue in the very same
Court and in the very same case.
Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(V. SRISHANANDA)
JUDGESBS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 53
CT: AK