Karnataka High Court Quashes SC/ST Act Complaint Against Baba Kalyani Over Unexplained 11-Year Delay
A 2018 complaint over an alleged 2007 incident, with no explanation for the 11-year delay, was an abuse of the process of law, the Karnataka High Court has held while quashing the SC/ST Act complaint against Baba Kalyani and two others.
Bengaluru: A private complaint under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against Bharat Forge chairman Babasaheb N. Kalyani, businessman Ashok Kheny and D. Ravisankar, arising from a land dispute linked to the NICE road project in Bengaluru, has been quashed by the Karnataka High Court [Babasaheb N. Kalyani & Ors. v. S. Rajendran & Ors.].
Justice M. Nagaprasanna pronounced the CAV order on November 4, 2026, allowing Criminal Petition No. 4657 of 2025 and the connected Writ Petition No. 7439 of 2020. The proceedings in P.C.R. No. 36 of 2018, pending before the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge (CCH-71), Bengaluru, stand quashed as against the petitioners.
One incident, eleven years apart
The Court said that the entire complaint revolved around a single incident of 2007, and nothing prevented the complainants from going to the police at that time.
“This forms a classic illustration as to the misuse and abuse of the provisions of the Act. The narration in the complaint begins in the year 2007 and ends in 2018, but the incident remains only of 2007.”
“If everything has happened in the year 2007 why did the respondents wait to register the crime for 11 long years remains completely unexplained, even in the complaint. Therefore, the complaint is full of embellishments.”
How the complaint travelled
S. Rajendran, S. Meganathan and S. Sampath filed the private complaint on July 16, 2018. They alleged that land in Sy. No. 86 of Kodigehalli village, granted to their late father by the State, was taken for the NICE project on forged grant records, that the petitioners trespassed and damaged property including their educational society’s building, and that they were abused by caste name. The complaint placed both the demolition and the abuse on March 31, 2007.
The Special Court referred the complaint for investigation. After a jurisdiction issue between police stations, the complaint’s dismissal for non-prosecution and its later restoration, the police filed a ‘B’ (closure) report. On February 27, 2025, the Special Court referred the matter afresh to the Commissioner of Police under Section 156(3) of the CrPC, which led to the criminal petition. The writ petition had challenged an earlier 2019 order in the same case.
The petitioners’ version, as recorded by the Court, was that on the same date in 2007 the complainants had tried to put up sheds on the project company’s land, which led to a trespass case against the complainants under Sections 447, 427 and 504 read with 34 IPC. The complainants were acquitted in that case.
The two sides
Senior Advocate Prabhuling K. Navadgi, for the petitioners, called the complaint a blatant abuse of the process of law, filed 11 years after the alleged trespass and abuse, and faulted the Special Court for ordering investigation without examining whether any offence was made out.
Advocate Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi, for the complainants, argued that delay alone would not vitiate the proceedings because fraud had been played to take granted lands that were never acquired for the project, and that the complainants were assaulted and abused by caste name when they objected. High Court Government Pleader Waheeda M.M. submitted that the case was still at the investigation stage and the Court should not interfere.
Settled law on delay
The Court relied on Supreme Court rulings that unexplained, inordinate delay in setting criminal law in motion can itself justify quashing, including Kishan Singh v. Gurpal Singh, Chanchalpati Das v. State of West Bengal and Hasmukhlal D. Vora v. State of Tamil Nadu, and on the categories in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal. It concluded that allowing investigation would be an abuse of process.
“The alleged hurling of abuses in the year 2007 or incident of the year 2007 had no impact upon these complainants/respondents. The impact is felt in the year 2018. It has taken 11 years to feel the impact. Even if the contents of the complaint are taken as true, it would not make out an offence, for it being marred by delay.”
Why the judgment matters
The SC/ST Act is a protective law, and courts are slow to cut short cases under it. The ruling, however, applies the settled principle that a long, unexplained gap between an alleged incident and the complaint is a crucial factor, and that a criminal case filed years later over what is at root a land dispute may be quashed as an abuse of process under the Bhajan Lal categories.
The order rests on delay and the absence of any explanation for it in the complaint. It does not decide the complainants’ separate claims about title to the granted land or the validity of the acquisition for the NICE project.
Case Title: Babasaheb N. Kalyani & Ors. v. S. Rajendran & Ors. [Criminal Petition No. 4657 of 2025 c/w Writ Petition No. 7439 of 2020]
Bench: Justice M. Nagaprasanna, Karnataka High Court
Date of Order: November 4, 2026
For the Petitioners: Senior Advocate Prabhuling K. Navadgi for S.B. Mathapati
For the Complainants: Prabhugoud B. Tumbigi (Crl.P.); Syed Khaleel Pasha (W.P.)
For the State: HCGP Waheeda M.M.
Thanks for reading LawChakra
Get the day’s key court rulings by email or WhatsApp. Free.