Karnataka High Court
CRL.RP/537/2025 of SHRI. MOHAN GUDISLAMANI Vs THE CHIEF SECRETARY on 17 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010236522025 NC: 2026:KHC:36746 CRL.RP No. 537 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 537 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI. MOHAN GUDISLAMANI S/O SHRI CHAMABAPPA
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO. 537 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1.
SHRI. MOHAN GUDISLAMANI
S/O SHRI CHAMABAPPA
PRESIDENT
DHARWAD DISTRICT WALMIKI SANGH
DHARWAD
AGE. 60 YEARS
OCC. AGRICULTURE
R/O. AT POST KONDIKOPPA
TALUK: ANNIGERI
DISTRICT : DHARWAD
…PETITIONER
[BY SRI. D.M. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE (ABSENT)]
AND:
1.
THE CHIEF SECRETARY
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-01
2.
THE SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS
Digitally signed
by
PADMAVATHI
B K
Location: High
Court of
Karnataka
HC-KAR
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-01
3.
THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
OFFICE OF THE
SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
DHARWAD
4.
THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
OFFICE OF THE
DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
DHARWAD
5.
THE CIRCLE POLICE INSPECTOR
RURAL POLICE STATION
DHARWAD
6.
SHRI VENKTESH LAKASHANI
S/O HANUMANTAPPA
AGE: 57 YEARS
R/O. PRESENTLY WORKING AT
HANUMANTHAPPA
MAULESH HIGH SCHOOL
MUGUD
TALUK AND DISTRICT: DHARWAD
7.
SMT. CHAITRA METI
D/O SHANKARAPPA
AGE: 36 YEARS
R/O. PRESENTLY WORKING AT
HANUMANTHAPPA
MAULESH HIGH SCHOOL
MUGUD
HC-KAR
TALUK AND DISTRICT: DHARWAD
8.
SMT NIRMALA CHAVANNAVAR ALIAS
CHAVVAN
D/O KALLAPPA
AGE: 36 YEARS
R/O. PRESENTLY WORKING AT
HANUMANTHAPPA
MAULESH HIGH SCHOOL
MUGUD
TALUK AND DISTRICT: DHARWAD
9.
SHRI DODDAPPA KEGANAVAR
S/O. SANGAPPA
AGE: 63 YEARS
R/O. PRESENTLY WORKING AT
HANUMANTHAPPA
MAULESH HIGH SCHOOL
MUGUD
TALUK AND DISTRICT: DHARWAD
10.
SHRI BASAVARAJ HORATTI
S/O SHRI SHIVALINGAPPA
AGE: 75 YEARS
OCC: MEMBER OF
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND
CHAIRMAN OF
THE KARNATAKA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL,
BANGALORE
CLAIMING HIMSELF AS
THE PRESIDENT OF
SARVODAYA SHIKSHANA TRUST
ARAVATAGI
TALUK AND DISTRICT: DHARWAD
HC-KAR
R/O. ADAVESHWAR SADANA
VEMANA BIDI
HUBBALLI
TALUK: HUBALLI
DISTRICT: DHARWAD
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. WAHEEDA M.M., HCGP FOR R1 TO R5)
THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.438
R/W 442 OF BNSS, SEEKING TO REJECT THE DECISION OF
DROPPING
OF
CHARGES
BY
THE
INVESTIGATION
OFFICER/AUTHORITIES IN DHARWAD RURAL POLICE STATION
CRIME NO. 17/2022 AND TAKE COGNIZANCE AGAINST THE
ACCUSED 6 TO 10 ON THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE
COMPLAINANT AGINST THE ACCUSED NO. 6 TO 10, FOR
COMMITTING OF OFFENCES U/SEC. 323, 342, 427, 504, 506, 109, R/W 34 OF IPC AND ALSO UNDER SCHEDULED CASTES
AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
AMENDMENT ORDINANCE 2014. SEC 3(1)(r)(s) R/W SEC.
3(1)(f), (g), (m), (p), (q), (r) (u), (v), Za(D) AND Za(C) OF
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION
OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 AND RULES 1995 AND DIRECT THE
CONCERNED JURISDICTIONAL POLICE STATION TO INQUIRE
AND RE-INVESTIGATE THE MATTER AGAINST THE ACCUSED 6
TO 10 ON THE COMPLAINT GIVEN BY THE COMPLAINANT
AGAINST THE ACCUSED 6 TO 10 COMMITTING OF OFFENCES
U/SEC. 323, 342, 427, 504, 506, 109, R/W 34 OF IPC AND
ALSO UNDER SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ORDINANCE 2014
SEC. 3(1)(r)(s) AND ALSO IN ADDITION TO IMPOSE/INSET
3(1)(f), (g), (m), (p), (q), (r), (u), (v), Z(a) (D) AND Za(C) OF
SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION
OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989 AND RULES 1995.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
HC-KAR
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner right from the day office objections have been overruled.
2. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
Therefore, the petition is dismissed for its non-prosecution.
Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE
SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9