Karnataka High Court
Sri.Venkatesh M vs State By on 7 June, 2022
Author: M. Nagaprasanna
Bench: M. Nagaprasanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION No.6762 OF 2021
C/W.
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1377 OF 2021
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.6762 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. N.K.RAMAKRISHNA
S/O LATE KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
NO.54, SNEHA SADANA
4TH MAIN, 6TH CROSS
KEB LAYOUT, RMV II STAGE
BENGALURU 560 094.
2. K.RAGHAVENDRA
S/O LATE KEMPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS.
3. MUKUNDA
S/O K.RAGHVENDRA
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS.
BOTH PETITIONER NO'S 2 AND 3
ARE RESIDING AT NO.1
MATHRU NILAYA
4TH CROSS, TEACHERS COLONY
NAGASHETTYHALLI
2
RMV II STAGE
BENGALURU - 560 094.
4. PREMA
W/O ALTE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 76 YEARS
R/AT NO 455, 8TH CROSS
MAHALAXMI LAYOUT
BENGALURU - 560 086.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SANDESH J.CHOUTA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI RAGHU H., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH KODIGEHALLI P.S.,
BENGALURU
THROUGH THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
STATE OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. G.VENKATESH
S/O V.GURAPPA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
NO.1247, 3RD CROSS
NEAR GANESHA TEMPLE
NEW THIPPASANDRA
BENGALURU CITY - 560 075.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI S.PRAVEEN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.105/2021 DATED
14.08.2021 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1
KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.447,
448, 506, 504, 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(s) OF
3
SC/ST (POA) ACT, 1989, LAID BEFORE CCH-71, CITY CIVIL COURT
COMPLEX, BENGALURU CITY PRODUCED HERETO AS
ANNEXURE-A, IN SO FAR AS THESE PETITIONERS ARE
CONCERNED.
IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.1377 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. SRI VENKATESH M.,
S/O LATE MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS,
RESIDING AT GANDHI SEVA SANGHA
NO.340, BAKSHI GARDEN
BENGALURU - 560 053.
2. SRI VENKATESH G.,
S/O V.GURAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.401
2ND MAIN ROAD,
O.B.M.R.LAYOUT,
BANASAWADI
BENGALURU - 560 043.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SANDESH J.CHOUTA, SR.ADVOCATE FOR
SRI PRATHAPA R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY
KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION
REPRESENTED BY SPP
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. MUKUNDA N.,
S/O K.RAGHAVENDRA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
4
RESIDING AT NO.1,
MATHRU NILAYA, 4TH CROSS
TEACHERS COLONY
NAGASHETTIHALLI
RMV 2ND STAGE,
BENGALURU - 560 094.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI SHANKARAIAH B., ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.148/2020
REGISTERED BY THE KODIGEHALLI POLICE STATION, FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S 447, 448, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF VII
ADDL.C.M.M., BENGALURU.
THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.6762 of 2021 call in question proceedings in Crime No.105 of 2021 registered for offences punishable under Sections 447, 448, 506, 504 & 34 of the IPC and Sections 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Act' for short).
2. The petitioners in Criminal Petition No.1377 of 2021 call in question proceedings in Crime No.148 of 2020 registered for 5 offences punishable under Sections 447, 448, 506 and 34 of the IPC.
3. It is a case and a counter case arising out of a solitary incident. The 2nd petitioner in Criminal Petition No.6762 of 2021 is the complainant in Criminal Petition No.1377 of 2021 and 2nd petitioner in Criminal Petition No.1377 of 2021 is the complainant in Criminal Petition No.6762 of 2021. Since both the petitions arise out of a solitary incident of sale of a particular property, they are taken up together and considered in this common order.
4. Heard Sri Sandesh J. Chouta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.6762 of 2021, Sri R.Pratap, learned counsel appearing for petitioners in Criminal Petition No.1377 of 2021, Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 in both the petitions, Sri S.Praveen, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 in Criminal Petition No.6762 of 2021 and Sri B. Shankaraiah, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 in Criminal Petition No.1377 of 2021.
6
5. Reference to parties as otherwise specifically referred to, will be as arrayed in Criminal Petition No.6762 of 2021.
6. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petitions, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:
Second respondent / G.Venkatesh is the complainant in Crime No.105 of 2021 and petitioner No.2 is accused No.2 in Crime No.148 of 2020. Accused No.4/petitioner No.4 in Criminal Petition No.6762 of 2021, one Smt. Prema and her children claimed to be the absolute owners of the property in Site No.11 at Balaji Layout, Nagashettyhalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Bengaluru North Taluk having acquired it through inheritance from one late Muniyappa, which had originally fallen to his share by virtue of partition dated 05-05-1955. Accused No.4 and her children thereafter executed a General Power of Attorney on 22.01.1990 in favour of one K.Raghavendra, complainant in criminal petition No.1377 of 2021 to deal with the aforesaid property, which included the power to alienate. On the strength of the GPA dated 22-01-1990, accused No.2 - K.Raghavendra sold the site to accused No.3 - one Mukunda 7 in terms of sale deed dated 11-06-2019. Accused No.3 pursuant to the sale claims to be in possession of the property.
7. It is at this juncture, 2nd respondent in Crl.P.No.6762 of 2021 springs into action. The claim of the said 2nd respondent is that accused No.4 - Smt. Preema had executed a power of attorney in favour of one M.Venkatesh and the said M.Venkatesh sold the property in favour of the complainant G.Venkatesh in the year 2018 and on that score began to stake claim over the property, which accused No.3 is alleged to be in possession. In furtherance of this claim, the complainant institutes a civil suit in O.S.No.5682 of 2019, seeking permanent injunction against the petitioners in Crl.P.No.6762 of 2021. Petitioner Nos.1 and 2 and others were made defendants in the said suit.
8. On 21-12-2020 alleging that petitioner No.3 is being threatened by the complainant that he would file a false atrocities case against him and fix him up in that case, petitioner No.3 registers a crime in Crime No.148 of 2020 for offences punishable under Sections 447, 448, 506 read with 34 of the IPC. It is this registration of crime by the 3rd accused that forms part of 8 companion petition in Criminal Petition No.1377 of 2021. As apprehended, the complainant registers a crime in Crime No.105 of 2021 on 14-08-2021 long after the 3rd petitioner registers a crime against the complainant, for offences punishable under Sections 447, 448, 504, 506 and 34 of the IPC and Section 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act. The registration of crime in Crime No.105 of 2021 is the subject matter of Criminal Petition No.6762 of 2021.
9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed on record a memorandum of compromise entered into between one Manjunath Munivenkatappa, K.Raghavendra and Mukunda in O.S.No.1429 of 2021 before the civil Court. The complainant G.Venkatesh, who was also a signatory to the memorandum of compromise accepts all the terms of the compromise in which it was submitted that all cases between the petitioner and the complainant should be closed and on the strength of this document, the learned senior counsel would contend that despite closure of the issues between the parties, the complainant could not have registered the crime in Crime No.105 of 9 2021 invoking the provisions of the IPC and the Act on the ground that the petitioners hurled abuses upon the complainant.
10. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing the 2nd respondent - complainant would vehemently refute the submissions to contend that the compromise that is entered into has nothing to do with the allegations under the provisions of the Act and therefore, would contend that it is a matter of trial for the petitioners to come out clean since it is a case and a counter case. If the petitioners have registered a crime against the complainant, at the outset it is for them to face trial in the crime that the complainant has registered.
11. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
12. It is not disputed that the parties are before the civil Court in O.S.No.5682 of 2019, where the parties to these petitions are the parties therein. The claim of the petitioners in Criminal Petition No.6762 of 2021, particularly of the 3rd petitioner is that, 10 he is in possession of the property and therefore, the allegation for the one punishable under Section 447 or 448 of the IPC would not be maintainable. This submission sounds acceptance as Section 447 of the IPC, which deals with criminal trespass and Section 448 of the IPC, which deals with house trespass, which requires the complainant or the victim to be in possession of the property as it is in possession of someone's property and the accused would enter into and generate such obstruction. If the property is not at the hands of the complainant, an allegation under Section 447 or 448 of the IPC can hardly be made. Therefore, the complaint against each other insofar as they pertain to offence punishable under Section 447 or 448 of the IPC would depend upon the outcome of the civil proceedings in O.S.No.5682 of 2019.
13. Insofar as allegation with regard to hurling of abuses against the complainant in Criminal Petition No.6762 of 2021 is concerned, it is to be seen whether it has been done in public view or in a public place. The complaint registered by the complainant in Criminal Petition No.6762 of 2021 reads as follows: 11
"¢£ÁAPÀ: 06/03/2020 gÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀzÀj ¤ªÉñÀ£ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÀéZÀÑUÉƽ¹ ²Ãn£À ªÀÄ£ÉUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀA¦UÉ «zÀÄåvï ¸ÀA¥ÀPÀðªÀ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ®Ä ºÉÆÃzÁUÀ gÁªÀÄPÀȵÀÚ, gÁWÀªÉÃAzÀæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ ªÀÄÄPÀÄAzÀ, ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÉæêÀiÁ JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ §AzÀ "K ¨sÉÆë £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ£Éà F §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß £ÁªÉà ªÀiÁrgÀĪÀÅzÀÄ F §qÁªÀuÉAiÀÄ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉà PÁgÀtPÀÆÌ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw d£ÁAUÀzÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ©qÀĪÀÅ¢®è" JAzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÀÆ fêÀ ¨ÉzÀjPɪÉÇrØgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. F ¸ÀA§AzsÀªÁV £Á£ÀÄ PÉÆrUɺÀ½î ¥Éưøï oÁuÉUÉ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ J£ï.¹.Dgï.£ÀA.142/2020 gÀ°è zÁR¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ."
The allegation is one punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act. Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act read as follows:
"(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) of the Act mandates that hurling of abuses concerning the accused should be made either in a public place or any place which is of public view. The narration in the complaint (supra) is that, the petitioners entered the house of the complainant along with two other persons and hurled such abuses within the four walls of the house. There is no narration in the complaint that abuses were hurled outside on a road or at a public place. In the light of the fact that it is hurled within the four walls of 12 the house of the complainant, it cannot become offences under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act. Therefore, permitting further proceedings to continue against the petitioners for the offences punishable under the Act would run foul of the judgment of Apex Court in the case of HITESH VERMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710. The Apex Court has held as follows:
"20. Later, while examining the constitutionality of the provisions of the amending Act (Central Act 27 of 2018), this Court in a judgment reported as Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India [Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India, (2020) 4 SCC 727 : (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 657] held that proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code. It was held as under : (SCC p. 751, para 12) "12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameters, as already observed while deciding the review petitions. The legal position is clear, and no argument to the contrary has been raised."13
21. In Gorige Pentaiah [Gorige Pentaiah v. State of A.P., (2008) 12 SCC 531 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 446] , one of the arguments raised was non-disclosure of the caste of the accused but the facts were almost similar as there was civil dispute between parties pending and the allegation was that the accused has called abuses in the name of the caste of the victim. The High Court herein has misread the judgment of this Court in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale [Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 3 SCC 789 :
(2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 20] as it was not a case about the caste of the victim but the fact that the accused was belonging to upper caste was not mentioned in the FIR. The High Court of Bombay had quashed the proceedings for the reason that the caste of the accused was not mentioned in the FIR, therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is not made out. In an appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court, this Court held that this will be the matter of investigation as to whether the accused either belongs to or does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the High Court erred in law to dismiss the quashing petition relying upon later larger Bench judgment.14
22. The appellant had sought quashing of the charge-sheet on the ground that the allegation does not make out an offence under the Act against the appellant merely because Respondent 2 was a Scheduled Caste since the property dispute was not on account of the fact that Respondent 2 was a Scheduled Caste. The property disputes between a vulnerable section of the society and a person of upper caste will not disclose any offence under the Act unless, the allegations are on account of the victim being a Scheduled Caste. Still further, the finding that the appellant was aware of the caste of the informant is wholly inconsequential as the knowledge does not bar any person to protect his rights by way of a procedure established by law.
23. This Court in a judgment reported as Ishwar Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. [Ishwar Pratap Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 13 SCC 612 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 818] held that there is no prohibition under the law for quashing the charge-sheet in part. In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court is required to examine as to whether its intervention is required for prevention of abuse of process of law or 15 otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court held as under : (SCC p. 618, para 9) "9. Having regard to the settled legal position on external interference in investigation and the specific facts of this case, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice. There is no prohibition under law for quashing a charge-sheet in part. A person may be accused of several offences under different penal statutes, as in the instant case. He could be aggrieved of prosecution only on a particular charge or charges, on any ground available to him in law. Under Section 482, all that the High Court is required to examine is whether its intervention is required for implementing orders under the Criminal Procedure Code or for prevention of abuse of process, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. A charge-sheet filed at the dictate of somebody other than the police would amount to abuse of the process of law and hence the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 to the extent of the abuse. There is no requirement that the charge- sheet has to be quashed as a whole and not in part. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The supplementary report filed by the police, at the direction of the Commission, is quashed."
24. In view of the above facts, we find that the charges against the appellant under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act are not made out. Consequently, the charge- 16 sheet to that extent is quashed. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms."
In the light of the facts obtaining in the case at hand and the judgment rendered by the Apex Court, abuses that have been hurled within the four walls of the complainant's house, would not become an offence under Section 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s) of the Act. Therefore, the proceedings on those offences are to be obliterated.
14. Insofar as the offences against each other which are the ones punishable under Sections 447 and 448 of the IPC, the entire issue being at large before the civil Court in O.S.No.5682 of 2019 as the sale deed that is executed pursuant to the compromise are all before the civil Court, those offences necessarily arise out of allegations that are purely civil in nature, which are sought to be given a colour of crime both by the petitioners and the complainant against each other in both these cases. Since the issue being purely civil in nature, permitting further proceedings to continue either in Crime No.148 of 2020 or in Crime No.105 of 2021, would become an abuse of process of law and result in miscarriage of justice. 17
15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:
ORDER
i) The criminal petitions are allowed.
ii) The proceedings in Crime No.105/2021 concerning Crl.P.No.6762/2021 and Crime No.148/2020 concerning Crl.P.No.1377/2021, both registered by the Kodigehalli Police, stand quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE nvj CT:MJ