(BY SRI. GIRISH BALADARE, ADVOCATE) v. NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

(BY SRI. GIRISH BALADARE, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONERS AND:

STATE BY CHIKKAMAGALURU RURAL P.S CHIKKAMAGALURU-577101 REPRESENTED BY THE TATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11706 CRL.P No. 2811 of 2024 HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

SMT. SHASHIKALA W/O NIZAAM, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/O BHAKTHARAHALLI VILLAGE, MALLENAHALLI POST, JOGRA HOBLI, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577 101. (BY SRI. M.V. ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) …RESPONDENTS THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR FILED BY THE RESPONDENT POLICE AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CR.NO.51/2024 REGISTERED BY THE CHIKKAMAGALURU RURAL POLICE THAT 1ST RESPONDENT FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.3(1)(r) AND 3(1)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) AMENDMENT ACT 2015 AND U/S.323,354,354-B,504 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, COURT CHIKKAMAGALURU. AT THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR ORAL ORDER The petitioners challenge the registration of the FIR for offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 354(B), and 504 of the IPC, as well as Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11706 CRL.P No. 2811 of 2024

2. The 2nd respondent lodged an FIR on 08.02.2024, stating that her grandfather is the owner of property measuring 4 acres in Sy. No. 179, and there is an ownership dispute between her family members and one Tabreez Alam. On

08.02.2024, when the 2nd respondent stepped out of her house, she saw a scooty parked in the estate. Upon questioning the accused, who were standing near the scooty, they allegedly abused her with reference to her caste, outraged her modesty, and assaulted her.

Although notice was served on the 2nd respondent, she chose not to appear either in person or through counsel and was therefore placed ex parte.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent- State.

The family members of the 2nd respondent initiated proceedings under Section 5 of the PTCL Act for redemption of the subject land from Tabreez Alam. The petition was dismissed, prompting an appeal under Section 5(a) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (“PTCL Act”), which remains pending before the Deputy Commissioner.

The 2nd respondent and one Rudresh filed a suit in O.S. No.30/2022 seeking a permanent injunction against Tabreez Alam. In the said suit, an application for a temporary injunction was filed, which the Trial Court rejected after hearing - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11706 CRL.P No. 2811 of 2024 the parties, holding that the plaintiffs are not in possession of the subject land. The petitioners are relatives of Tabreez Alam, and the alleged incident occurred within the coffee estate, not in public view, which is necessary to constitute the offences alleged.

The dispute between the parties pertains to the ownership of the subject land, and the FIR appears to have been lodged to circumvent the order of temporary injunction against the 2nd respondent and her family members. Under such circumstances, continuation of the investigation would amount to an abuse of the process of law.