CRL.P/9417/2026 of SRI MUTHAPPA A K Vs STATE OF KARNATAKA on 2 September 2026

ORAL ORDER

The petitioners are before the Court calling in question registration of a crime in Crime No.63/2026 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 78, 79 and 3(5) of the BNS and Sections 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Atrocities Act' for short).

2. Heard Sri. Mukund N. Raate, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Sri. B.N. Jagadeesha, learned State Public Prosecutor - I appearing for respondent No.1 and

HC-KAR

Sri. Pranesh Joshi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

3. Facts, in brief, germane are as follows: The petitioners are owners and employees of Skylark resort. The complainant is a guest, who after booking, enters the resort and has some squabble with regard to the kind of room that is granted or otherwise. This leads to severe altercations between the two. The petitioners then upgrade the room of the complainant to the premium status but the complainant does not accept the offer and moves away. At that point in time, between the entry and the moving away is what forms the fulcrum of the lis. A crime comes to be registered in Crime No.63/2026 on the complaint made by the 2nd respondent. Registration of the crime is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the offences alleged are not made out in the case at hand even to their semblance. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that there was no occasion of

HC-KAR

outraging the modesty of a woman or treating the woman in a bad manner and the offence under the Atrocities Act is also loosely laid.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the crime was registered only on 23.06.2026 and there is an interim order of stay operating in the case at hand. The crime must be permitted to be investigated into reserving liberty to the petitioners to approach the appropriate fora at the relevant point in time.

6. Learned State Public Prosecutor - I appearing for the State would also toe the lines of the learned counsel appearing for the complainant in contending that investigation must ensue in the case at hand as the offences are clearly made out.

7. I have given my anxious consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel and have perused the material on record.

HC-KAR

8. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. They would not require any iteration. The complaint so registered has triggered the registration of the crime. Therefore, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. The complaint reads as follows: “EAzÀ, ±ÀÄæw ©.PÉ. PÀA ªÀgÀÄuï UëqÀ (36 ªÀµÀð) £ÀA 27 1£É ªÉÄãï 4£É Páæ¸ï PÁªÉãj ¯ÉÃOmï £ÁUÀgÀ¨Á« ªÀÄÄRågÀ¸ÉÛ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀægÀÄ – 72 EªÀjUÉ ¥Éưøï E£ïì¥ÉPÀÖgï £Á¥ÉÆÃPÀÄè ¥Éưøï oÁuÉ ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ,

£Á£ÀÄ ±Àäæw © PÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉë PÉ ªÉÄîÌaqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸À«gÀÄvÉÛêÉ. ±ÀäæwAiÀiÁzÀ £Á£ÀÄ UëqÁ¸ï eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀÄÝ zÉëAiÀiÁzÀ £Á£ÀÄ J¸ï.¹ (S.C.) eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjgÀÄvÉÛêÉ.

±ÀäæwAiÀiÁzÀ £Á£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀÄÈvÀgÁVzÀÄÝ ªÀgÀuï UëqÀgÀ£Àäß JgÀqÀ£Éà «ªÁºÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. vÁAwæPÀ PágÀtUÀ½AzÁUÀ £À£Àß CzÀgÀzÀ°è £À£Àß ªÀÄÈvÀ UÀAqÀ£À ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£Àäß §zÀ¯Á¬Ä¹gÀĪÀÅ¢®è. ±ÀäæwAiÀiÁzÀ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß UÀAqÀ ªÀgÀÄuï UëqÀ ªÀÄUÀ vÉÃd¸ï ºÁUÀÄ £À£Àß ¸ÉßûvÉAiÀiÁzÀ ¸ÀÄUÀÄt §¬Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉëgÀªÀgÀÄ ªÁºÀ£À ¸ÀASÉå KA 02 MX 7996 gÀ°è PÉÆqÀV£À ¥ÀæªÁ¸À vÁtUÀ¼À£Àäß £ÉÆÃqÀ®Ä ªÉæzÀ¯Éà §ÄPï ªÀiÁqÀPÉÆÃrzÀÄÝ PÉÆqÀUÀÄ f¯ÉèAiÀÄ ¸ÉìöʯÁpïð gɸÁnð (Sky Lark Resort) UÉ §A¢zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

¢£ÁAPÀ 23/06/2024 gÀAzÀÄ gÀƪÀiï ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆArzÀÄÝ gÁwæ 7.20 HlPÉÌ ¸À«ð¸ï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀªÀgÀÄ ¥sÀÄqï DqÀðgï vÉUÉzÀÄPÉƼÀäîªÁUÀ £À£ÀߣÀäß zÉë ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀÄUÀÄt

HC-KAR

¨Á¬ÄaiÀÄ£Àäß PélÖ zÀȶ֬ÄazÀ £ÉÆÃqÀÄvÁÛ ¤ÃªÀÅ AiÀiÁªÀ eÁw AiÀiÁªÀ HgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀ KjAiÀiÁ JazÉ®è PÉüÀävÁÛ EzÀÄÝ ±ÀäæwAiÀiÁzÀ £Á£ÀÄ UëqÁ¸ï eÁw ¸ÀÄUÀÄt ¨Á¬Ä ªÀägÁp eÁwUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉë J¸ï.¹. (S.C.) eÁwUÉ ¸ÉãjgÀĪÀÅzÁUÀ ºÉýzÀÄÝ CzÀPÉÌ ¸ÀzÀj gÀƪÀiï ¸À«ð¸ï ªÀiÁqÀĪÀªÀgÀÄ zÉëAiÀÄ PàqÉ £ÉÆÃqÀÄvÁÛ £ÉÆÃrzÀgÉ £ÉÆÃrzÀgÉ UÉÆvÁÛUÀÄvÉÛ J¸ï.¹. (S.C.) eÁw JazÀÄ ºÉüÀävÁÛ £À£ÀߣÀäß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉëAiÀÄ£Àäß PélÖ zÀȶ֬ÄazÀ CªÀgÀ vÀÄn¸ÉêqÀ°è PàaÑzÀAvÉ ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ DUÀ zÉë J¸ï.¹. (S.C.) eÁw JazÀÄ UÉÆvÀÛzÀgÀÄ CªÀjUÉ CªÀªÀiÁ£À ªÀiÁqÀ zÉë J¸ï.¹. (S.C.) eÁw DvgÀĪÀåzÀjAzÀ CªÀjUÉ K£ÀÄ ªÀiÁrzÀgÀÄ £ÀqÉAiÀÄÄvÉÛ JazÀÄ D jÃw ªÀwð¸ÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ zÉëAiÀĪÀjUÉ CªÀªÀiÁ£À ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

F «ZágÀªÀ£Àäß £ÁªÀÅ gɸÁmïð ªÀiÁå£Éãdgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ°PàjUÉ w½¹zÀgÀÄ PÀÆqÀ FUÀ PÉÆnÖgÀĪÀ gÀÆ«ÄUÉ §gÀªÁV ¦æëÄAiÀÄA gÀƪÀiï PÉÆqÀĪÀåzÁV HlzÀ ©¯ï PÉÆqÀĪÀåzÀÄ ¨ÉãqÀ JazÀÄ w½¹zÀÄÝ HlzÀ ¸À«ð¸ï CªÀgÀ£Àäß Pàgɹ F «ZágÀ ªÀiÁr®è ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤ÃªÀÅ £ÉÆÃrzÀgÉ JazÀªÀgÀÄ JazÀÄ UÉÆvÁÛUÀÄvÉÛ JazÀÄ zÉëPàqÉ £ÉÆÃr ºÉýgÀÄvÁÛgÉ £ÁªÀÅ ªÀÄ»¼ÉaiÀÄgÀÄ JazÀÄ UÉÆwÛzÀÝgÀÄ £ÀªÀää£Àß ¨ÉãgÉ zÀȶ֬ÄazÀ ZÀPï J£ï DzÁV¤AzÀ®Æ »A¨Á°¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ¯ÉÊAVPÀªÁV §¼À¹PÉƼÀäîªÀ zÀȶÖaiÀÄ£Àäß ºÉÆA¢ zÉëAiÀÄ£Àäß ¤ÃªÀÅ J¸ï.¹ (S.C.) eÁw JazÀÄ £ÉÆÃrzÀgÉ UÉÆvÁÛUÀÄvÉÛ JazÀÄ ºÉüÀĪÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ DPÉUÉ eÁw DzsÁgÀzÀ°è CªÀªÀiÁ£À ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄ»¼É DzsÁgÀzÀ°è CªÀªÀiÁ£À ¯ÉÊAVPÀªÁV zËdð£Àå ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ, ¸ÀÄUÀÄt ¨Á¬Ä ªÀÄÄAzÉ vÀ£ÀUÉ CªÀªÀiÁ£ÀªÁ¬ÄvÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ gɸÁmïð£À°è EzÀݪÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ £À£ÀߣÀäß ¨ÉãgÉ jÃw £ÉÆÃqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ CªÀªÀiÁ£À D¬ÄvÀÄ JazÀÄ zÉë D¼ÀävÁÛ EgÀÄvÁÛgÉ DzÀÝjAzÀ £ÁªÀÅ 10 UÀAlUÉ gɸÁmïð SÁ° ªÀiÁr £Á¥ÉÆÃPÀÄè ¥Éưøï oÁuÉUÉ ªÀiÁ»w ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ ¸ÀA§AzsÀ¥ÀlÖ gɸÁmïð ªÀiÁ°ÃPÀgÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¹§âA¢ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ PàæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀäîªÀavÉ PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛãÉ.” (Emphasis added)

It is the case of the complainant that the complainant belongs to Scheduled Caste. The complainant is a guest entering a resort. It is not that a guest would display the caste and enter the resort. The altercation happens between the employees and the management of the resort. It is at that time, as per the allegation in the complaint, that the petitioners have made certain gestures against a woman belonging to the Scheduled Caste that would become the ingredient of the

HC-KAR

offence under Section 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Atrocities Act. The allegation would not meet the threshold ingredient that is necessary to become an offence under Section 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Atrocities Act, as it is plain and simple that the petitioners - management of the resort would not know every guest who enters the resort as to which caste they belong to. This is however the prima facie view. In the event, during the course of investigation it is found that the petitioners had infact indulged in hurling of offences, it would always be open to add the offences in accordance with law. For now, the offence under the Atrocities Act is loosely laid against the petitioners and therefore must be obliterated.

9. Insofar as the offences under Sections 78 and 79 of the BNS, whether it would meet the ingredients or otherwise would be only a product of investigation in the final report. Therefore, the petitioners are reserved liberty to re-approach this Court in the event a final report is filed and the final report would go against them.

HC-KAR

10. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

i. Criminal petition is allowed in-part. ii. Insofar as the offence under Section 3(1)(w)(ii) of the Atrocities Act is concerned, the crime in Crime No.63/2026 pending before the Addl. District and Sessions Court, Kodagu District stands quashed qua the petitioners. iii. Insofar as the offences under Sections 78 and 79 of the BNS are concerned, the crime in Crime No.63/2026, pending before the Addl. District and Sessions Court, Madikeri, Kodagu District, stands sustained qua the petitioners reserving liberty as afore-mentioned.

Ordered accordingly.

Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

SJK List No.: 2 Sl No.: 19