Karnataka High Court
S. S. Nagaraj vs State Of Karnataka on 29 August, 2023
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC:37697
CRL.P No. 4937 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4937 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
S.S. NAGARAJ
SON OF LATE SRI. SHIVALINGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
WORKING AS DIRECTOR AND
OUTSTANDING SCIENTIST AT
ELECTRONICS AND RADAR DEVELOPMENT ESTABLISHMENT,
POST BOX NUMBER 9324,
C.V.RAMAN NAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 093.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KUMAR M.N., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY SPP,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENGALURU-560001.
Digitally
signed by 2.
SUMA NAGESHA S.P.
Location: SON OF S.M.PRABHAKAR HEBBAR,
HIGH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
COURT OF WORKING AS SCIENTIST-F
KARNATAKA
AT ELECTRONICS AND RADAR DEVELOPMENT
ESTABLISHMENT
POST BOX NUMBER 9324,
C.V.RAMAN NAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 093.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. RAJATH SUBRAMANYAM, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT
PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. PRAMOD MALLUR, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC:37697
CRL.P No. 4937 of 2019
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR
REGISTERED AGAINST THE PETITIONER, ARRAYING AS ACCUSED
NO.2 BY RESPONDENT NO.1 IN CRIME NO.108/2019 FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(p), 3(1)(r),
3(1)(s), 3(1)(t) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, 1989
READ WITH SECTION 341, 323 AND 34 OF IPC, 1860 PENDING ON
THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE (CCH-71) AT BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner/accused No.2 has challenged the registration of First Information Report, against him in Cr.No.108/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(p), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(t) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth referred to as 'SC/ST (POA) Act for short) read with Sections 341, 323 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth referred to as 'IPC' for short) pending consideration before the LXX Additional City and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru.
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC:37697 CRL.P No. 4937 of 2019
2. The respondent No.2 informed the respondent No.1 on 05.07.2019 about the commission of a cognizable offence by the petitioner. The respondent No.2 claimed that he was working as Scientist - F at LRDE, Bengaluru, while, the petitioner and another accused were his superiors and upper caste Hindus. He claimed that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe. He alleged that the petitioner and the accused No.1 were abusing, torturing and insulting him, as he belonged to Scheduled Tribe and was appointed against the reserved quota. The respondent No.2 claimed that during May, 2018, the petitioner and the accused No.1 asked him for the laptops, for which, he informed that it was lying in the office of the accused No.1. The accused No.1 allegedly shouted at him claiming that scheduled tribe people always behaved that way and that the respondent No.2 had stolen the laptop. The respondent No.2 was allegedly prohibited from using the facilities at the division including taking coffee, tea and water and even sitting at his table. The respondent No.2 alleged that a casual labourer was called and instructed by accused No.1 not to allow him to take coffee, tea or water.
-4-
NC: 2023:KHC:37697 CRL.P No. 4937 of 2019
3. The respondent No.2 further alleged that on 06.06.2018, he was transferred to the HR division. At the HR division, he was told that there was no work to be assigned and there was no place of work. He further alleged that on 15.06.2018, he reported to the Director of LRDE, who instructed him to continue his work at the same place and report to the accused No.1. The respondent No.2 claimed that during June, 2018 and onwards, the accused No.1 shifted the round table and chair from his room, instructed him not to drink purified water, closed the exit door of the room and took away the printer and instructed him to supervise the cleaning of the room and the toilets. During June, 2018, when the respondent No.2 asked for the Radar Project, the accused No.1 shouted at him claiming that he did not want to see the respondent No.2 as he was an untouchable and that he was fit only to do odd jobs. The accused No.1 therefore directed the respondent No.2 to do odd jobs. The respondent No.2 claimed that he had done his engineering and was interested in enhancing the technical knowledge of B.Tech and M.Tech students, who used to visit LRDE but was not allowed by accused No.1. The respondent No.2 claimed that he requested -5- NC: 2023:KHC:37697 CRL.P No. 4937 of 2019 the petitioner herein to take appropriate action against the accused No.1 in terms of his letter dated 26.02.2019, but the petitioner allegedly failed to take any action against the accused No.1. He alleged that whenever he approached the petitioner, he repeatedly advised him that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe and that such instances were common, which he should bear and not to make an issue. The respondent No.2 alleged that whenever he went to the petitioner, he was insulted by saying that whatever accused No.1 did was common. He alleged that on 26.02.2019, the petitioner and the accused No.1 planned to harm him and lodged a false complaint before the Civil Right Enforcement Cell claiming that he did not belong to Scheduled Tribe and got an enquiry initiated against him. He alleged that CRE Cell visited the office and told him that the Director of LRDE had lodged a complaint. He claimed that CRE cell went to his village to check the status of his caste and it was confirmed that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe. He claimed that he kept an idol of Goddess Kali in his cabin, which he revered and worshipped. He alleged that accused No.1 forcibly removed it and dumped it in a disrespectful manner. He alleged that though he informed the -6- NC: 2023:KHC:37697 CRL.P No. 4937 of 2019 same to the petitioner, he did not take any action, but supported the accused No.1. He alleged that on 12.02.2019, when he approached the accused No.1 to receive his annual performance, he was pushed and manhandled resulting in severe back pain. He alleged that he informed this to the petitioner, who again did not take any action. He therefore, accused the petitioner of supporting the accused No.1 by not reporting the incident to the police and when the respondent No.2 requested the petitioner to permit him to lodge a complaint, he did not take any action, but allowed the accused No.1 to perpetuate the casteist attack on him. He claimed that the accused No.1 apologised in front of one Mr. AK Pathak, and admitted his mistake in assaulting. Hence, he claimed that he did not lodge a complaint in time. He therefore, alleged that both the accused were responsible for treating him inhumanly as he belonged to Scheduled Tribe.
4. Based on this, respondent No.1 registered Cr.No.108/2019 for the offences under Sections Sections 3(1)(p), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(t) SC/ST (POA), Act and Sections 341 and 323 read with 34 of IPC and took up investigation.
-7-
NC: 2023:KHC:37697 CRL.P No. 4937 of 2019
5. The petitioner who was arraigned as accused No.2 has filed this petition challenging the first information drawn and the investigation undertaken by the respondent No.1. The petitioner contends that a perusal of the complaint discloses that it was entirely directed against the accused No.1 and the only allegation against the petitioner/accused No.2 was that he did not take any action on the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2. He further contended that the Director of LRDE had constituted a fact finding committee which met on several dates, examined the respondent No.2, accused No.1 and several witnesses and submitted its report stating that the allegations made by the respondent No.2 was not established. He claimed that the CRE cell had sought details relating to the respondent No.2 to investigate a case bearing CV No.04/SP/DCRE/BC/2019 and therefore, the LRDE had furnished the details. He submits that the respondent No.2 being dissatisfied with the petitioner furnishing the details, has belatedly filed a complaint before the respondent No.1. He therefore prayed that the proceedings against the petitioner be quashed.
-8-
NC: 2023:KHC:37697 CRL.P No. 4937 of 2019
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2, submitted that the petitioner/accused No.2 was the superior of the respondent No.2 as well as accused No.1 and therefore, when the respondent No.2 brought to the notice of the petitioner, he was bound to take suitable action against accused No.1 or must have lodged an appropriate complaint before the jurisdictional police. He submitted that the petitioner by not considering the grievance of respondent No.2 had infact supported accused No.1 and therefore, the petitioner also has to be involved in the investigation.
7. Learned High Court Government Pleader on the other hand submitted that the respondent No.2 was employed in an organisation, and therefore, it is not impossible that the respondent No.2 could have been exposed to casteists slurs and therefore, the petitioner has to be involved in the investigation.
8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader.
-9-
NC: 2023:KHC:37697 CRL.P No. 4937 of 2019
9. A perusal of the information furnished by the respondent No.2 before the respondent No.1 shows that all the allegations made therein were directed against accused No..1 and not against the petitioner. The only allegation against the petitioner was that he did not take any action even after being informed by respondent No.2. However, the information furnished by the respondent No.2 does not disclose any particulars as to when and how the respondent No.2 informed the petitioner. At any rate, a fact finding committee constituted internally by LRDE showed that the allegations made by the respondent No.2 was not established and it is long thereafter that the respondent No.2 has chosen to file the instant complaint before the respondent No.1.
10. The respondent No.2 alleged that since the accused No.1 apologised to him in front of Mr. A.K. Pathak, he did not lodged a complaint immediately. This circumstance itself goes to show that the respondent No.2 and the accused No.1 were at loggerheads and the petitioner is unnecessarily roped into the controversy. Therefore, the first information drawn against the petitioner deserves to be quashed qua the petitioner.
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC:37697 CRL.P No. 4937 of 2019
11. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The first information drawn in Cr.No.108/2019 against the petitioner/accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(p), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(t) of SC/ST (POA) Act and Sections 323 and 341 read with Section 34 of IPC pending trial before LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru qua the petitioner stands quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE HJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 0