Karnataka High Court
State Of Karnataka vs Smt. Sridevi D/O. Vasant Telagar on 7 August, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994
CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 100360 OF 2021
(397 OF Cr.PC/438 OF BNSS)
BETWEEN:
STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE POLICE INSPECTOR,
DCRE BELAGAVI,
THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL STATE
PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
ADVOCATE GENERAL OFFICE,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN K. UPPAR, AGA)
Digitally signed by
CHANDRASHEKAR
AND:
LAXMAN
KATTIMANI
Location: High
Court of Karnataka,
Dharwad Bench 1. SMT. SRIDEVI D/O. VASANT TELAGAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NIL,
R/O. KELAGERI ROAD, DHARWAD,
DHARWAD-580001.
2. SMT. JANAKIBAI D/O. VASANT TELAGAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NIL,
R/O. KELAGERI ROAD, DHARWAD,
DHARWAD-580001.
3. SRI. SHRIKANT S/O. TIPPANNA TELAGAR
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994
CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021
HC-KAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NIL,
R/O. KELAGERI ROAD, DHARWAD,
DHARWAD-580001.
4. SRI. VASANT S/O. BABU TELAGAR,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NIL,
R/O. KELAGERI ROAD, DHARWAD,
DHARWAD-580001.
5. SRI. VINAYAK S/O. SRIPADBHAT JOSHI,
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: NIL,
H.NO.38, 2ND CROSS,
SRINAGAR EXTENSION, UNKAL,
DIST. DHARWAD,
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. R. HEGDE, ADV. FOR R1 TO R4;
SRI. BAHUBALI A. DANAWADE, ADV. FOR R5)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED UNDER
SECTION 397 (3) R/W SECTION 401 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL
FOR RECORDS IN SPL.(SC/ST) C.C.NO.17/2017 DATED 30.05.2020
ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
DHARWAD AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30.05.2020 PASSED
IN SPL.(SC/ST) C.C.NO.17/2017 ON THE FILE OF II ADDL. DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD AND DIRECT THE II ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD TO PROCEED WITH
TRIAL IN SPL.(SC/ST) C.C.NO.17/2017 FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 171, 181, 196, 198, 420 OF IPC AND
ALSO UNDER SECTION 3(i)(ix) AND SECTION 4 OF SC/ST (POA) ACT
AND ALSO UNDER SECTION 5(a) AND 5(b) OF OTHER BACKWARD
CLASSES RESERVATION ACT, 1990, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE
AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994
CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
(PER: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
This revision petition is filed seeking prayer to set aside
the order dated 30.05.2020 passed in SPL.(SC/ST)
CC.No.17/2017 by the II Addl. District and Sessions Judge,
Dharwad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘trial Court’, for short)
and further direction to direct the said Court to proceed with
the trial of the aforesaid case against the respondents herein.
2. Heard Sri.Praveen K.Uppar, learned Additional
Government Advocate and Sri.Sagar R.Hegde, learned counsel
appearing for respondents No.1 to 4.
3. The case of the prosecution is that accused No.4
who is the Government employee obtained the caste certificate
from the Tahsildar, Dharwad as ‘Hindu Bhovi’ caste on
29.06.2005 by furnishing false information. It is further case of
the prosecution that accused No.1 and 2 are the daughters of
accused No.4, accused No.3 is the grandson of accused No.4
and they all have taken the benefits as ‘Hindu Bhovi’ caste
even though they originally belong to ‘Hindu Bhoyi’ caste which
comes under ‘Category-I’ caste. The aforesaid complaint was
-4-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994
CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021
HC-KAR
lodged by Police Inspector, DCRB, Belagavi before the Dharwad
Sub Urban Police Station and the same is registered as Crime
No.214/2011. The Investigating Officer after completion of the
investigation, filed a charge sheet against the accused No.1 to
5 for the offences punishable under Sections 171, 181, 196,
198, 420 of the Indian Penal code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC‘),
Sections 3(i)(ix) and 4 of the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short,
‘SC/ST POA Act’) and Sections 5(a) and 5(b) of the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
Classes (Reservation of Appointments etc.) Act, 1990 (for
short, ‘OBC Act’). The accused No.1 to 4 filed an application
seeking for discharge which came to be allowed by the trial
Court considering the charge sheet material and the decision of
the Division Bench of this Court in the case of THE DIVISIONAL
COMMISSIONER, BELGAUM DIVISION AND ORS. V. BHOVI
SAMAJA SEVA SANGHA AND ORS. reported in ILR 2003 KAR
1584. Being aggrieved, the State has filed this revision petition.
4. The case of the prosecution is that the trial Court
has committed an error in allowing the application for discharge
filed by the accused without going for trial, which is required to
-5-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994
CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021
HC-KAR
be interfered with in this petition. It is submitted that the
respondent No.4 who is a Government employee admittedly,
belongs to ‘Hindu Bhoyi’ Community which is ‘Category-I’ caste.
However, he has furnished false information to the
jurisdictional Tahsildar and obtained caste certificate and
claimed the benefit as a person belonging to Scheduled Caste.
Similarly, the other accused who are the daughters and
grandson, furnished incorrect information and are enjoying the
benefit for the persons belonging to Scheduled Caste and these
aspects are required to be thoroughly examined during the
trial. However, the Special Court discharged the accused
without any basis. Hence, he seeks to allow the petition by
directing the Special Court to try the offences alleged against
the respondents.
5. Per contra, Sri.Praveen K.Uppar, learned Additional
Government Advocate supports the impugned order of the
Special Court and submits that this Court in the case of BHOVI
SAMAJA SEVA SANGHA referred supra, has clearly held that the
word ‘Bhoyi’ is synonyms to ‘Bhovi’ which is a Scheduled Caste
and considering the same, a finding is recorded by the trial
-6-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994
CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021
HC-KAR
Court that the accused have not furnished any false information
to the Tahsildar, Dharwad, while obtaining the caste certificate,
which does not call for any interference. Hence, he seeks to
dismiss the petition.
6. I have heard the arguments of learned Additional
Government Advocate and learned counsels for respondents
No.1 to 4 and meticulously perused the material available on
record.
7. The material on record indicates that the Police
Inspector, DCRB, Belagavi, filed a written complaint to the
Station Officer, Dharwad Sub-Urban Police station stating that
accused No.4 has furnished false information to the Tahsildar,
Dharwad and obtained ‘Hindu Bhovi’ caste certificate on
29.06.2005 and taking advantage of the false caste certificate,
he has continued in the Government employment. Similarly
accused Nos.1 and 2-daughters of the accused No.4 are
enjoying the benefit of ‘Hindu Bhovi’ caste and accused No.3
grandson of the accused No.4 furnished incorrect information
that he belongs to ‘Valmiki Community’. The jurisdictional
Police investigated the complaint in Crime No.214/2011 and on
-7-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994
CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021
HC-KAR
completion of investigation, filed a charge sheet on 23.04.2017
for the offences punishable under Sections 171, 181, 196, 198,
420 of the IPC, Sections 3(i)(ix) and 4 of the SC/ST POA Act
and Sections 5(a) and 5(b) of the OBC Act. In the said
proceedings, the accused had filed an application under Section
227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking discharge. The
trial Court evaluated the charge sheet material and came to a
conclusion that the accused No.4 is working as a government
employee in All India Radio, obtained the caste certificate as
‘Hindu Bhovi’. The case of the prosecution is that the accused
No.4 belongs to ‘Hindu Bhoyi’, which is ‘Category-I caste’ and
Other Backward Class caste and not a Scheduled Caste. The
trial Court considered the records like school certificate, the
service records of the brothers of accused No.4, it has
considered the statement on record of the mother of the
accused No.4. Those records clearly indicate that the accused
No.4 belongs to ‘Hindu Bhoyi’ Community. The mother of the
accused No.4 also categorically stated in her statement that
they are not in the avocation of stone crushing. The trial Court
considering the charge sheet material, has come to conclusion
that the accused No.4 has furnished correct information and
-8-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994
CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021
HC-KAR
obtained the certificate that she belongs to ‘Hindu Bhoyi’
Community and there is no false information furnished by her.
The records indicate that the accused Nos.1 and 2 being the
daughters of accused No.4, admittedly, are not in any
Government employment and there is no material on record to
indicate that they have obtained any benefit claiming as a
person belongs to Scheduled Caste. Furthermore, the trial
Court has clearly recorded the finding that the accused No.4
has not furnished any false information to the Tahsildar while
obtaining the caste certificate. Insofar as accused No.3 is
concerned, the trial Court has rightly recorded the finding that
the accused No.3 belongs to ‘Valmiki Community’ as his father
belongs to the said community and he acquires the caste by
paternity. The said finding of the trial Court is consonance with
the settled position of law.
8. The records indicate that accused No.4, 1 and 2 are
belonging to ‘Hindu Bhoyi’ Community. Now the question is,
whether the ‘Hindu Bhoyi’ is a Scheduled Caste or not. The said
issue is no more res-integra. The Division Bench of this Court in
the case of BHOVI SAMAJA SEVA SANGHA referred supra, and
-9-
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994
CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021
HC-KAR
by considering the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
the case of STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V/S MILING AND
ORS. and Full Bench decision in the case of
V. BASAVLINGAPPA V/S D. MUNICHINNAPPA AND ORS.
has held as under:
“5. The Apex Court in its order in the case of STATE
OF MAHARASHTRA V. MILIND AN ORS has referred to the
earlier Full Bench decision in V. BASAVLINGAPPA v. D.
MUNICHINNAPPA AND ORS. in paras 15 and 16 has held
that having regard to the peculiar circumstances of the
case wherein there was no caste by name, Voddar in the
State of Mysore at the time of Notification, the Court held
that it was necessary to find out as to which caste was
included as Voddar caste in the Notification and has
observed as follows:-
“Thereafter looking to the peculiar circumstances
of the case, the Court went on to say that (Para 7 of
AIR):-
“The difficulty in the present case arises from the
fact (which was not disputed before the High Court)
that in the Mysore State as it was before the re-
organization of 1956 there was no caste known a Bhovi
at all. The order refers to a scheduled caste known as
Bhovi in the Mysore State as it was before 1956 and
therefore it must be accepted that there was some
caste which the president intended to include after
– 10 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994
CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021HC-KAR
consultation with the Rajpramukh in the Order when
the Order mentions the caste Bhovi as a scheduled
caste. It cannot be accepted that the President
included the caste Bhovi in the Order though there was
no such caste at all in the Mysore State as it existed
before 1956. But when it is not disputed that there was
no caste specifically known as Bhovi in the Mysore
State before 1956, the only course open to Courts to
find out which caste was meant by Bhovi is to take
evidence in that behalf. If there was a caste known as
Bhovi as such in the Mysore State as it existed before
1956, evidence could not be given to prove that any
other caste was included in the Bhovi caste. But when
the undisputed fact is that there was no caste
specifically known as Bhovi in the Mysore State as it
existed before 1956 and one finds a caste mentioned
as Bhovi in the Order, one has to determine which was
the caste which was meant by that word on its
inclusion in the Order. It is this peculiar circumstance
therefore which necessitated the taking of evidence to
determine which was the caste which was meant by
the word “Bhovi” used in the Order, when no caste was
specifically known as Bhovi in the Mysore State before
the re-organization of 1956.”
Further, in para 18 of the Milind‘s case, it is observed
that a Constitution Bench in its earlier decision in
BHAIYALAL v. HARIKISHAN SINGHJANU/SC/0213/1965:
[1965]2SCR877 also, has referred to BASAVLINGAPPA’S
case and has held that in the unusual circumstances of
the case, the Court was justified in holding that Voddar
– 11 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994
CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021HC-KAR
caste was the same as Bhovi caste within the meaning of
the Order and it was an exception to the normal rule. In
para 27 of Milind‘s case, the Supreme Court has observed
as follows:-
“Being in respectful agreement, we reaffirm the
ratio of the two Constitution Bench judgments
aforementioned and state in clear terms that no
enquiry at all is permissible and no evidence can be let
in, to find out and decide that if any tribe or tribal
community or part of or group within any tribe or tribal
community is included within the scope and meaning of
the concerned Entry in the Presidential Order when it is
not so expressly or specifically included. Hence we
answer the question No. 1 in negative.”
This Court in the case of VIRUPAKSHAPPA v.
HANUMANTHA has considered the question and has
referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in
Basavlingappa’s case and also Milind‘s case and has
observed as follows:-
“8. Now the question that arises for
consideration is whether there has been any change
in the order made by the Government. In the order
issued on 27.7.1977 at SI. No. 23 Bhovi caste is
included as a Scheduled Caste. Thereafter
Government of Karnataka has issued an order on
27th March 1980 showing the list of Scheduled Caste
referring to SI. No. 23 as Bhovi and equivalent words
or synonyms as Od, Odde, Vaddar, Waddar and
Woddar. However, it is made clear in the Order itself
– 12 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994
CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021HC-KAR
that this list is not intended and shall not be treated
as an alteration or amendment of the Schedule to the
Presidential Order specifying Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes in relation to the Karnataka State
and therefore this order is not of much consequence.
What was of consequence was, what was meant by
Bhovi in the Presidential Order. But the Supreme
Court already considered the same in
Basavalingappa’s case and has held that Bhovi caste
will include Voddar which was also known as Boyi and
Bovi. In that view, we do not think it is open to the
appellants to contend that the caste described as
Bovi could not have been treated as Scheduled Caste.
Whatever might have been the references that have
been made in the Glossary of Terms or series of
Reports that have been submitted to the Government
by the Backward Class Commission, they may not be
of such relevance as what we have to interpret in the
order of the President issued under Article 341 of the
Constitution. When that has already been done by
the Supreme Court it is not open for us to re-examine
that questions”.
6. The learned Government Advocate has not given
able to dispute that the controversy considered by the
Apex Court in Basavalingappa’s case and decision of this
Court in Virupaksha‘s case referred to above fully answers
the question arising for determination in the writ petition
and the learned Single Judge has referred to the said
decisions and passed the Orders which have been
impugned in these appeals.
– 13 –
NC: 2025:KHC-D:9994
CRL.RP No. 100360 of 2021
HC-KAR
9. The aforesaid enunciation of law laid down by this
Court, clearly indicates that ‘Bovi’, ‘Boyi’, ‘Bhoi’ are the
synonyms to ‘Bhovi’ Community which belong to Scheduled
Caste. In the case on hand, the accused No.4 belong to ‘Boyi’
Community which is synonym to ‘Bhovi’ Community which
belongs to Scheduled Caste as per the presidential order
specifying Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. The trial Court
considering the charge sheet material, has rightly come to
conclusion that accused No.4 has not furnished false
information in the declaration to the Tahsildar, Dharwad and
obtained the caste certificate. I do not find any error or
perversity in the finding recorded by the trial Court calling for
interference in this petition. For the aforementioned reasons,
I do not find any merit in the present petition. Accordingly,
petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A.PATIL)
JUDGE
RH-para 1 to 3
RKM-para 4 to end
CT-AN
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1
[ad_1]
Source link