Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1375 (KAR)

Raju v. State of Karnataka

2023-12-11

SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

body2023
JUDGMENT 1. The Criminal Petition No.104105/2022 is filed by accused No.2 and Criminal Petition No.101177/2022 is filed by accused No.1. Both the petitions are filed praying to quash the FIR and complaint in Dharwad, Sub-Urban Police Station Crime No.28/2022 registered for the offences punishable under Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(p), 3(2)(v-a) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (hereinafter referred as 'the Act' for brevity) and Ss. 353 and 504 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as 'IPC' for brevity). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. 3. Respondent No.2 filed complaint and the same came to be registered in Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station Crime No.28/2022 for the aforesaid offences. In the FIR, petitioners have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2. The petitioners have sought quashing of the complaint and FIR in Crime No.28/2022 of Dharwad SubUrban Police Station. 4. Learned counsel for accused No.2 (petitioner in Crime No.104105/2022) would contend that there is no allegation of any abuse to respondent No.2 touching his caste to attract the offence under Sec. 3 of the Act. Even there is no allegation of accused No.2 being present on the date of incident i.e., 4/2/2022 at the spot. Accused No.2 has been named in the complaint only on the assumption that he and accused No.1 were involved in sending a letter through post on 3/2/2022 making allegations about working style of respondent No.2 to Governor of Karnataka State. What is contained in the said postal cover has not been stated in the complaint. He contends that there are no materials against accused No.2 to attract the offences for which the case is registered. With this, he prayed for quashing of the proceedings against accused No.2. 5. Learned counsel for accused No.1 (Petitioner in Criminal Petition No.101177/2022) would contend that respondent No.2 only assuming that accused Nos.1 and 2 might have sent a cover containing some allegations against him made in fictitious name namely Lokanath H. Hindasageri and with an intention to take revenge against them, has made a false allegation against this accused No.1 of abuse by touching his caste that too after office hours on 4/2/2022. Learned counsel for accused No.1 would contend that averments of complaint does not contain that accused persons are not the members of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with an intent to humiliate in a place within public view. He contends that even respondent No.2 has not stated in the complaint that the accused persons knew his caste prior to the date incident. On that point, he placed reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others, (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 531. Asmathunnisa Vs state of Andhra Pradesh Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Another, (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 259. Judgment of this Court in the case of Deepak Mahadevappa Turamari and others Vs State of Karnataka and Another, [Crl.P.No.100915/2019 & connected matter, decided on 16/8/2021.] and in the case of Harish S/o H.Shanthana Gouda and others Vs The State of Karnataka and Another, Crl.P.No.103202/2022, decided on 29/11/2023. The complaint filed by respondent No.2 is abuse of process of law which is filed with intent to take revenge against accused persons assuming that they sent a letter to the Governor of Karnataka making false allegations against him in the fictitious name on the previous day of incident. With this, he prayed to allow the petitions. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State would contend that on perusal of the averments of complaint there is a specific allegation against accused No.2 of abusing respondent No.2 taking his caste name in the presence of four persons present in the office of respondent No.2 at about 6:55 p.m on 4/2/2022. The act of accused No.1 has caused hindrance in discharge of duties by respondent No.2. The said aspect itself attracts the offences alleged against accused No.1. They contended that even though there is no specific allegation against accused No.2, but the averments of complaint reveal that he along with accused No.1 had sent a false complaint through post in fictitious name against respondent No.2. They contended that there are no grounds for quashing proceedings at this stage. With this, they prayed to dismiss the petitions. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the FIR, complaint, other documents and the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the parties. They contended that there are no grounds for quashing proceedings at this stage. With this, they prayed to dismiss the petitions. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the FIR, complaint, other documents and the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the parties. 8. Respondent No.2 has filed first information on 5/2/2022 and it came to be registered in Crime No.28/2022 of Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station for the offences punishable under Ss. 353, 504 of IPC and Sec. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(p), 3(2)(v-a) of the Act. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the FIR. In the averments of the first information it is stated that one Loknath H.Hindasageri, Secretary of Dharwad District Contractors Association, Navanagar has made a complaint against him regarding his working style and acquiring properties worth crores. In the first information it is further averred that the petitioners (accused Nos.1 and 2) were found in the post office on 3/2/2022 at about 11:25 a.m, and it is recorded in the CCTV footage and it is alleged that they might have been involved in sending a complaint against him in the name of Loknath H.Hindasageri. In the first information, it is also averred that accused No.1 on 4/2/2022 at about 6:55 p.m, came to his office and asked for favour to allot tender of construction of judicial officers quarters at Kalaghatagi to him and he did not agree. At that time, he abused him taking his caste name in filthy language in the presence of five persons named in the first information. There is no allegation of accused No.2 being present on 4/2/2022 at the time of alleged incident and there is no allegation against him of abusing him taking his caste name. Therefore, on perusal of entire first information, there is no case made out against accused No.2 (petitioner in Crl.P.No.104105/2022). Therefore, complaint against accused No.2 is an abuse of process of law. 9. The allegation of accused Nos.1 and 2 being involved in sending a cover through post on 3/2/2022 at 11:25 A.M., and it is recorded in the CCTV footage. The alleged complaint is filed on 5/2/2022 making allegations regarding an incident on 4/2/2022 and respondent No.2 is not aware of what is that postal cover contained and to whom it is addressed. The alleged complaint is filed on 5/2/2022 making allegations regarding an incident on 4/2/2022 and respondent No.2 is not aware of what is that postal cover contained and to whom it is addressed. Therefore, the said averments in the first information based on assumption/presumption of respondent No.2. There is no mention in the averments of the first information that accused Nos.1 and 2 are not the members of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe and they were aware of caste of respondent No.2. 10. On the basis of first information of respondent No.2, a case came to be registered in Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station Crime No.28/2022 for the offences punishable under Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(p), 3(2)(v-a) of the Act and other offences under IPC. In the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph No.6 it is held as under; 'The accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent No. 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent No. 3 in a place within public view.' 11. The aforesaid decision has been referred to in the case of Asmathunnisa (supra). The basic ingredients of Ss. 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(p), 3(2)(v-a) of the Act is that the complainant ought to have alleged that the petitioners were not the members of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and they intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire first information, nowhere it is mentioned that petitioners not the members of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and they intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent No.2 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the first information, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the petitioners to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law. 12. Relying the aforesaid decision in the case of the Gorige Pentaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesha and others, (2008) 12 SCC 531 . 12. Relying the aforesaid decision in the case of the Gorige Pentaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesha and others, (2008) 12 SCC 531 . and Asmathunnisa Vs State of Andhra Pradesh, (2011) 11 SCC 259 . this Court in the case of the Deepak Mahadevappa Turamari and Others Vs State of Karnataka and Others, [Crl.P.No.100915/2019 connected with Crl.P.No.101243/2019] quashed proceedings for offence punishable under Sec. 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC & ST Act. In the case on hand, in the first information, nowhere it is mentioned that petitioners were not members of the Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe and they intentionally insulted or intimidated by accused with intend to humiliate respondent No.2 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offences are missing in the first information, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the petitioners to face rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law. Therefore, the said first information is an abuse of process of law, which comes under the category No.7 of State of Harayana Vs Bhajan Lal and others, AIR 1992 SC 604 .case. Therefore, the proceedings against these petitioners requires to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following, ORDER The Criminal Petition Nos.104105/2022 and 101177/2022 are allowed. The FIR and complaint registered in Crime No.28/2022 in Sub-Urban Police Station Dharwad, are quashed.