ORDER : The petitioners/accused 1 to 8 are knocking at the doors of this Court in the subject petition calling in question proceedings in SC & ST (Spl.) Case No.24 of 2016 arising out of crime in Crime No.146 of 2016 for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(10) and (11) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the Act’ for short) and Sections 506, 341, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 354(B) of the IPC and order dated 10-01-2023 passed in the said case by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Davangere, declining to discharge the petitioners from the array of accused. 2. Facts, in brief, adumbrated are as follows:- The 2nd respondent, wife of one Nagappa is the complainant. It is alleged that special poojas are being held at Gadi Chowdeshwari Temple (‘the Temple’ for short) on every new moon day and full moon day of the month and to witness the said occasion on 17-09-2016, the complainant and her husband along with others seek to visit Gadi Chowdeshwari Temple at 9.00 a.m., at which point in time the petitioners along with others are alleged to have stopped the complainant and her family, assaulted the complainant and her husband including the child and have hurled several abuses against them taking the name of the caste and prevented them from entering the temple. It is thereafter, the complainant registers a complaint before the jurisdictional police on 18-09-2016, the next day, alleging all the incidents that became ingredients of offences punishable under Section 3(1)(10) and (11) of the Act and other offences under the IPC. This becomes a crime in Crime No.146 of 2016 for the afore-mentioned offences. The police then conduct an investigation on the allegations made by the complainant, records statements of witnesses including eye witnesses and draw up a charge sheet against the petitioners for all the aforesaid offences including an offence under Section 354B of the IPC. The moment the charge sheet is filed, the petitioners have knocked at the doors of the learned Sessions Judge by filing an application under Section 227 of the CrPC seeking their discharge from the array of accused. The learned Sessions Judge, by a detailed order, turns down the application on 10-01-2022. The moment the charge sheet is filed, the petitioners have knocked at the doors of the learned Sessions Judge by filing an application under Section 227 of the CrPC seeking their discharge from the array of accused. The learned Sessions Judge, by a detailed order, turns down the application on 10-01-2022. It is turning down of the application for discharge and filing of the charge sheet is what has driven the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition. 3. Heard Sri P.S.Malipatil, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, Smt. K.P. Yashodha, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and Sri S.G. Rajendra Reddy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2. 4. The learned counsel Sri P.S. Malipatil representing the petitioner would vehemently contend that there are no ingredients that would become the offence under Section 3(1)(10) and (11) of the Act. He would further emphasize the fact that trial is now sought to be conducted on the provisions which have undergone an amendment with the corresponding provision being Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Act. Therefore, it is vitiated on account of non-application of mind. Taking this Court through the provisions of the Act, he would contend that even if it is accepted that abuses have been hurled, they have been hurled between the walls of the temple which would not become a public place or place of public view to attract the offence and therefore, seeks quashment of entire proceedings contending that the 1st petitioner has registered a civil suit against the complainant and others. It is, therefore, the impugned complaint is an act of wrecking vengeance on that score. 5. Per-contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader Smt. K.P. Yashodha would vehemently refute the submissions contending that the petitioners have, in fact, indulged in all the ingredients that would become offences under the Act. The incident has taken place 7 years ago, pursuant to which, charge sheet was also filed immediately. But, the petitioners have preferred the present petition in the year 2023. She would further contend that there are seriously disputed questions of fact, which would require trial for the petitioners to come out clean. 6. The incident has taken place 7 years ago, pursuant to which, charge sheet was also filed immediately. But, the petitioners have preferred the present petition in the year 2023. She would further contend that there are seriously disputed questions of fact, which would require trial for the petitioners to come out clean. 6. The learned counsel representing the complainant Sri S.G. Rajendra Reddy would also toe the lines of the learned High Court Government Pleader again taking this Court through the complaint and the charge sheet so filed to contend that it is a matter of trial for the petitioners to come out clean, as they are prima facie guilty of hurling of abuses and physically assaulting the complainant and others in an open place. In unison both the State and the complainant would seek dismissal of the petition. 7. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 8. Though the afore-narrated facts are not in dispute, they would require a slight reiteration. The petitioners are persons belonging to the same village where the complainant and her husband reside and a civil suit is also pending between the parties. The temple i.e., Gadi Chowdeshwari is situated at Vinayaka Camp in Harihar Taluk where both the complainant and the accused reside and special poojas are organized on every new moon day, and full moon day of the month, at the Temple. The deity is worshipped by one and all of the area. 9. On 17-09-2016 the complainant, her husband and their child along with other villagers were stopped at the stairs of the temple preventing their entry into the temple by the petitioners. The blocking is on account of the reason that the complainant and others in the group belonged to Scheduled Caste and their entry into the Temple will make the Temple unholy. They were restrained and when the complainant and her husband protested, they were assaulted. This triggered registration of a complaint against the petitioners who were all responsible for such action aforesaid. Since the entire issue has triggered registration of complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. They were restrained and when the complainant and her husband protested, they were assaulted. This triggered registration of a complaint against the petitioners who were all responsible for such action aforesaid. Since the entire issue has triggered registration of complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the complaint. It reads as follows: The complaint is that the complainant and her family were stopped by the petitioners from entering the temple by calling the name of the caste of the complainant and also alleging that if they enter the temple the deity would become unholy and therefore, they should not even touch the stairs of the temple. When the complainant and others protested and attempted to enter the Temple, the complainant was assaulted by pushing her and her husband was kicked and the child was also not spared. Therefore, it became a crime in Crime No.146 of 2016 for the afore-quoted offences. The registration of crime leads to investigation and the investigation leads to recording of several statements of persons who were present at the alleged scene of crime. They were all independent eyewitnesses. Recording of statements leads to the Police filing charge sheet against the present petitioners. Summary of the charge sheet, as obtaining in Column No.17, is necessary to be noticed and is therefore, extracted for the purpose of quick reference. It reads as follows: (Emphasis added) The product of investigation i.e., the afore-quoted summary of charge sheet clearly indicates every act of the petitioners of hurling of abuses, assault and in particular, against accused No.1 it is alleged of holding the complainant, a lady by her neck, touching her body inappropriately, pushing her on the ground and kicking her later. It is therefore, the offence under Section 354(B) of the IPC is laid against the accused. If the complaint and the summary of the charge sheet are read in tandem, it would depict horrendous acts upon the petitioners particularly of the 1st petitioner. A perusal at the statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer including an eyewitness would clearly indicate the happening of the offences. The complainant, in her Section 164 CrPC statement before the learned Magistrate, has narrated the incident as is narrated in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. A perusal at the statements of witnesses recorded by the Investigating Officer including an eyewitness would clearly indicate the happening of the offences. The complainant, in her Section 164 CrPC statement before the learned Magistrate, has narrated the incident as is narrated in the statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. Section 164 statement of the complainant reads as follows:- The petitioners notwithstanding the aforesaid finding in the charge sheet and pretending to be innocent, seek their discharge from the array of accused. The concerned Court, appropriately recording cogent reasons, has rejected the application. The same swan song that is sung before the learned Sessions Judge in an application is repeated before this Court. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to contend that there are no abuses hurled which would become ingredients of offence under Section 3(1)(10) or (11) now Section 3(1)(r) & (s) of the Act. At the time when the complaint was registered, the amendment to the Act has just then come about. By the time the prosecution would become aware of it, in plethora of cases charge sheets are also filed under Section 3(1)(10) and (11) of the Act, which would not mean that petitioners would get absolved of the offences merely because a provision which has undergone amendment is quoted. Whatever crime that was made, an offence under Section 3(1)(10) and (11) is renumbered as Section 3(1)(r) & (s) of the Act under the amendment and the present existing provision reads as follows: “3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.—7[(1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,— (a) … … … (r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view; (s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view;” Section 3(1) (r) makes it an offence against an accused who with an intention to insult a member belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe hurls abuses in public. Section 3(1)(s) makes it an offence against an accused if the abuses are hurled with an intention to insult in a place of public view by taking the name of the caste. The abuses are to be hurled in a public place or a place of public view. 11. Section 3(1)(s) makes it an offence against an accused if the abuses are hurled with an intention to insult in a place of public view by taking the name of the caste. The abuses are to be hurled in a public place or a place of public view. 11. On the bedrock of the ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Act, if the facts narrated hereinabove are noticed, it would unmistakably emerge that ingredients of the section are attracted, as the abuses are hurled against the complainant and her family only with an intention to insult as the allegation is, since the complainant and the family belonged to Scheduled Caste, they were insulted and stopped from entering the Temple. It is not a case where the petitioners did not know to which caste the complainant her family belonged to. They are fully aware of it. Being fully aware of the caste of the complainant and her family, they were stopped from entering the temple only because they belonged to the said caste and abuses were hurled outside the temple. If this cannot construed to be a place of public view or even a public place, I fail to understand what else could be. Therefore, all the necessary ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Act are clearly found in the case at hand. The offences under the Act are, therefore, appropriately laid against the petitioners. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners has strenuously contended by taking this Court through several judgments rendered by this Court in the cases of (i) P.S. SRIDHAR v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, Crl.P.No.3014 of 2018 decided on 18th November, 2021 (ii) BHIMARAO GOPAL BIDARI v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, Crl.P.No.101343 of 2020 decided on 15th March, 2022, (iii) T.NARAYANA SWAMY v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, W.P.No.5316 of 2020 decided on 8th July 2022 and (iv) PADMAYYA v. STATE OF KARNATAKA, Crl.P.100428 of 2021 decided on 17th October, 2022, that the petitioners cannot be charged with the offences so alleged. These judgments are distinguishable on the facts obtaining in those cases without much ado. A clear finding is rendered in all the aforesaid judgments that there were no ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Act present therein and there was no intention even to hurl abuses against members belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. These judgments are distinguishable on the facts obtaining in those cases without much ado. A clear finding is rendered in all the aforesaid judgments that there were no ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Act present therein and there was no intention even to hurl abuses against members belonging to Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes. The case at hand is completely different than the facts obtaining in the aforesaid cases. The abuses are hurled and hurled in public which is viewed by several public as it was outside the doors of the Temple and the Temple is, trite, a public place. Therefore, the challenge to the offences under the Atrocities Act so laid tumbles down. 13. What remains are the offences under the IPC. The charge sheet is filed for offences under Sections 506, 341, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 323, 324 and 354(B) of the IPC. If the ingredients of these offices are considered on the bedrock of the complaint and the charge sheet, they are all met. The 1st petitioner is alleged to have touched the body of the complainant inappropriately, kicked, pushed her down and again kicked. If this cannot fall as the ingredients of Section 354(B) or Section 323 or even Section 324 of the IPC, I again fail to understand what it could be. All the other offences are incidental to the ingredients of the aforesaid offences. The plea of the petitioners that it is an act of wrecking vengeance for having filed a civil suit is contrary to facts narrated in the complaint or the summary of the charge sheet. If, notwithstanding the aforesaid facts, this Court would interfere in a case of this nature and obliterate the proceedings against the petitioners, it would be putting a premium on the alleged acts. There are scores and scores of cases which are entertained even at the crime stage and quashed by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., holding that searching for a case where a member belonging to scheduled caste or scheduled tribe has actually suffered abuses was like searching for a needle in the haystack. The case at hand is clearly a needle in the haystack, as the abuses and the allegations are all prima facie found and therefore, no interference can be called for. 14. The case at hand is clearly a needle in the haystack, as the abuses and the allegations are all prima facie found and therefore, no interference can be called for. 14. It is rather unfortunate that despite constitutional abolition of any form of untouchability, it still remains and persists in rural areas of the nation. Although temples are seen to be symbols of unity and inclusivity, denial of rights of temple entry and worship, to persons belonging to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, still looms large. This attitude of the petitioners is undoubtedly regressive for they have denied entry into a temple, only on the score that the complainant and her family belong to scheduled caste. This discrimination should stop, and stop forthwith. The fact that it is still prevailing shocks the conscience of the Court. Human beings are to be treated as human beings. Deity in the temple cannot even be imagined to be belonging to a few. Worshipping of the deity, by entering into the temple, is to be given to one and all. Any kind of bigotry or discrimination is unacceptable. Trial in such cases cannot be interdicted. There are complete ingredients of the offences so alleged present in the case at hand. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following: ORDER : (i) The petition lacking in merit, stands rejected. (ii) Since the complaint is of the year 2016 and we are close to the year 2024, eight years have passed by. Therefore, the concerned Court shall make an endeavour to complete proceedings as expeditiously as possible and at any rate within six months from the date of the order. It is needless to observe that the parties to the lis shall cooperate in the conclusion of the proceedings. It is made clear that the observations made in the course of the order are only for the purpose of consideration of the case under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and the same shall not bind or influence further proceedings in any manner. Consequently, I.A.No.1 of 2023 also stands disposed.