Case Note & Summary
The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition seeking to quash an FIR registered against Vice-Chancellor of Bengaluru North University, under Sections 3(1)(q) and (u) of the SC/ST Act and Section 356(2) of BNS, 2023 -- The case originated from the termination of respondent No.2, Manjunatha R., a part-time lecturer, by the University Syndicate -- After challenging his termination in writ proceedings before the High Court, the complainant filed a private complaint alleging caste-based atrocities and defamation -- The Special Court referred the matter for investigation, leading to FIR registration -- The Court found the criminal proceedings were initiated as counter-blast litigation during the pendency of the employment dispute -- The Court held that defamation cases cannot be investigated by police and must be examined judicially -- Following Supreme Court precedents, the Court quashed the FIR and all related proceedings as an abuse of process, noting that the termination decision lacked ingredients necessary for SC/ST Act offences
Headnote
The High Court of Karnataka quashed an FIR registered against a University Vice-Chancellor under Sections 3(1)(q) and (u) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act) and Section 356(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) -- The case arose from the termination of a part-time lecturer's services by the University Syndicate -- The complainant, who had challenged his termination before the High Court in writ proceedings, subsequently filed a private complaint alleging caste-based discrimination and defamation -- The Court held that the criminal proceedings were initiated as a counter-blast to the employment dispute and constituted an abuse of process -- The Court emphasized that defamation cases under Section 356(2) of BNS (equivalent to Section 500 of IPC) cannot be referred for police investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) -- Following the Supreme Court precedent in Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221, the Court ruled that private complaints for defamation must be examined judicially before issuing process -- The Court found that none of the essential ingredients for offences under the SC/ST Act were present in the termination decision -- The termination was based on the Syndicate's resolution regarding the complainant's conduct, not on caste-based discrimination -- The criminal petition was allowed, and all proceedings were quashed
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the FIR registered under Sections 3(1)(q) and (u) of the SC/ST Act and Section 356(2) of BNS, 2023 should be quashed as an abuse of process and counter-blast litigation
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The Court allowed the criminal petition and quashed the FIR in Crime No.71/2025 and all consequential proceedings including PCR No.2/2025
