Karnataka High Court
Padmanabh S/O Ramachandrabhatta ... vs Renuka D/O Fakkirappa Belavatti on 11 March, 2022
Author: Hemant Chandangoudar
Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100004 OF 2020
BETWEEN
1. PADMANABH
S/O RAMACHANDRABHATTA KUNDAPUR
AGE: 66 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BOMMANALLI,
HANAGAL-581203.
2. GANGADHAR
S/O. RAMACHANDRABHATTA KUNDAPUR,
AGE: 63 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BOMMANALLI,
HANAGAL-581203.
3. MOHAN
S/O RAMACHANDRABHATTA KUNDAPUR,
AGE: 69 YEARS,
OCC: AGRICULTURE,
R/O: BOMMANALLI,
HANAGAL-581203.
4. BHARAT
S/O PADMANABH KUNDAPUR,
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE WORK AT BENGALURU,
R/O: BOMMANALLI,
2
HANAGAL-581203.
5. SHARAT S/O PADMANABH KUNDAPUR
AGE: 29 YEARS,
OCC: PRIVATE WORK AT BENGALURU,
R/O: BOMMANALLI,
HANAGAL-581203.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. M. B. GUNDAWADE, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RENUKA D/O FAKKIRAPPA BELAVATTI
AGE: 38 YEARS, OCC: COOLIE,
R/O: BADAMIGATTI,
TQ: HANAGAL-587206.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD,
THROUGH HANAGAL POLICE STATION.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ARVIND KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC.482 OF CR.P.C.,
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 5, IN HANAGAL P.S. CR.
NO.289/2016, FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES U/SEC.143, 147,
324, 354, 504 R/W 149 OF IPC AND U/SEC.3(1)(r) OF SC/ST
(PA) ACT, ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE, HAVERI.
3
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Respondent No.2/complainant lodged a complaint against the petitioners alleging that on 11.11.2016 at about 7.00 p.m., when she had been to Jowar field of accused No.1 along with others, all the accused in furtherance of their common object formed an unlawful assembly with an intention to commit offence and started quarreling with the complainant and abused her with filth language by referring to her caste stating that she belongs to lower Walmiki caste. It is alleged that petitioner No.1- accused No.1 gave her life threat and also assaulted on her head with a sickle causing simple injury. It is alleged that the accused assaulted her with hands and pulled/thrown her with an intention to outrage her modesty. The police registered the case against accused persons for the offences punishable under sections 143, 147, 323, 324, 354, 504, 506 read with 149 of IPC and section 3(1)(r) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short "the SC/ST Act").
4
2. The police, after investigation, filed "B" report to which respondent No.2-complainant filed protest petition. The learned Magistrate by order dated 16.10.2019 rejected the "B" report filed by the police and took cognizance for the aforesaid offences against the petitioners and issued summons. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for petitioners submits that the learned Magistrate has erred in simultaneously rejecting the "B" report and taking the cognizance of the offences and issuing summons, which is impermissible in law. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decision of the coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Dr.Ravikumar vs. Mrs. K. M. C. Vasantha and another1. He further submits that the allegations made in the first information report and in the sworn statement does not disclose the commission of offence alleged against the petitioners and prayed for allowing the present petition.
1 ILR 2018 KAR 1725 5
4. On the other, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2-complainant would submit that the allegations made in the first information report and also in the sworn statement establishes that the petitioners have committed aforesaid offences. He further submits that the learned Magistrate after considering the protest petition has rightly rejected the "B" report filed by the police and same cannot be interfered with.
5. Learned HCGP appearing for respondent No.1-state would submit that the police, after investigation has rightly filed "B" report.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The allegations made against the petitioner is that when respondent No.1 along with other accused was working in the land belonging to accused No.1, all the accused in furtherance of their common object, came near the spot and picked up a quarrel stating that she belongs to lower Walmiki caste and thereafter, she was assaulted by accused No.1 with a 6 sickle on her head causing simply injury and thereafter all the accused assaulted her with hand and pulled/thrown her with an intention to outrage her modesty. The police, after investigation, filed "B" report taking into account the further statement of the complainant wherein she has admitted that the FIR was lodged at the instance of one Yasir Ahmed Pathan the FIR. The learned Sessions Judge , instead of passing an order on "B" report at the first instance has simultaneously passed an order of rejecting the "B" report and taken cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioners and issued process, which is impermissible in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dr.Ravikumar (supra). The learned Magistrate was only required to consider the contents of the protest petition before passing an order on the "B" report and was not required to consider the sworn statement before passing any order on "B" report. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge is contrary to the procedure contemplated for passing an order on "B" report filed by the police. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following:
7
ORDER The criminal petition is allowed.
The impugned order dated 06.10.2019 passed by the I-Additional District and Sessions Judge, Haveri is hereby quashed. In the result, the matter is remitted back to the Trial Court with a direction to follow the procedure as contemplated in the decision of Dr.Ravikumar (cited supra) and pass an order on the "B" Report filed by the Police.
The Sessions Judge shall not be influenced by the order passed by this Court or its earlier order, which is impugned in this petition.
Sd/-
JUDGE YAN