Karnataka High Court
Sri S M M Nadgeer vs State Of Karnataka By on 5 February, 2014
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 5th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2014
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP D. WAINGANKAR
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.824 OF 2013
BETWEEN
1. SRI S M M NADGEER
S/O M K NADGEER
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.56,
60 FEET ROAD, NEAR MODI HOSPITAL
MANJUNATHA NAGAR
BANGALORE-560010.
2. SMT. MANJULA M NADGEER
W/O S M M NADGEER
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.56,
60 FEET ROAD, NEAR MODI HOSPITAL
MANJUNATHA NAGAR
BANGALORE-560010.
3. SRI MADHUSUDHAN
S/O S M M NADGEER
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.56,
60 FEET ROAD, NEAR MODI HOSPITAL
MANJUNATHA NAGAR
BANGALORE-560010.
... PETITIONERS
(By Sri: SRINIVAS N, ADV., )
AND
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
BASAVESHWARA NAGARA
POLICE STATION
2
BANGALORE-560010.
... RESPONDENT
(By Sri:NASRULLA KHAN, HCGP)
--------
THIS CRL.RP IS FILED U/S.397 AND 401 CR.P.C PRAYING
TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS DATED 06.04.2013 PASSED BY THE
XLIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J. AND ALSO HOLDING
CONCURRENT CHARGE OF THE II ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J.,
BANGALORE IN SPL.C.C.NO.343/2010 WHO WAS PLEASED TO
DISMISS THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETRS. HEREIN U/S
227 OF CR.P.C. AND DISCHARE THE PETRS. FOR OFFENCES
P/U/S 323, 504, 506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC.3(1)(x) OF SC/ST
ACT, AS IT RELATES TO THE PETR.
THIS CRL.RP COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This criminal revision petition under Section 397 r/w 401 of Cr.P.C. is against the order dated 6.4.2013 in Spl.C.C.No.343/2010 on the file of II Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge at Bangalore, whereby the application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioners-accused for their discharge came to be rejected.
2. The accused before the Sessions Judge, Bangalore are the petitioners herein. The case of the prosecution is that one Smt. Krithika, wife of the complainant Mahadev, 3 was working as lecturer in Nadgeer Polytechnic college. Since she was running eight months, she requested the management for grant of two months leave, which was refused by the management of the college. When she asked for return of original certificates, they demanded Rs.18,000/- from her. So on the next day, i.e., on 4.8.2010, she came to the college alongwith her husband Mahadev-complainant and approached accused Nos.1 and 2 S.M.M. Nadgeer- founder of the college and accused No.2 Manjula M. Nadgeer Principal of the college in the Chambers of the Principal and enquired as to why his wife Krithika should pay an amount of Rs.18,000/- for return of her original certificates. Enraged by the same, the accused abused Smt. Krithika and her husband the complainant by taking their caste 'Kuravan' in filthy language and addressing them that if the employment is provided to lower caste people, that itself is wrong and thereby they were humiliated by accused Nos.1 and 2 and accused No.3 Madusudhan, S/o. of accused Nos.1 and 2, who is supervising the entire college. In the process, accused No.1 kicked the complainant Mahadeva with legs, accused No.2 4 pushed Krithika to the ground and accused No.3 caught hold of the neck of the complainant with their common intention so as to defame and humiliate them. As such, Mahadeva-complainant, who is an Advocate, lodged the complaint against accused Nos.1 to 3 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC r/w Sections 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. A crime came to be registered against all the three accused and statement of various witnesses came to be recorded and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet came to be filed against all the accused for the aforesaid offences in Spl.C.C.No.343/2010. Cognisance was taken, accused were summoned. The accused appeared and filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. for their discharge. The application was opposed learned Special Public Prosecutor. It was heard by the learned Sessions Judge and on merits by order dated 6.4.2013, the application came to be rejected. Aggrieved by the rejection of the application filed by the accused for their discharge, this criminal revision petition is preferred.
5
I have heard both the learned counsel for the petitioners/accused and the High Court Government Pleader for respondent.
3. The point that arises for my consideration is:-
"Whether the impugned order of rejection of the application for discharge is sustainable in law?' My finding is in the affirmative for the following:-
REASONS Admittedly, a crime came to be registered against all the three petitioners-accused for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 504, 506 of IPC r/w Sections 3 (1) (x) of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The police during the course of investigation recorded the statement of various witnesses- Smt. Krithika, Sri. Ravi Kumar, Sri.Lokesh, Sri.Vijayan, Sri.Manjunathaswamy, Sri. Shashikumar and Sri. Devaraj. The police also collected the caste certificate of the complainant which discloses that they belong to 'Schedule Caste'. The witnesses whose statements have been 6 recorded have also spoken more or less in conformity with the averments made out in the complaint by the complainant Mahadeva. There is clear-cut averments both in the complaint and in the statements of witnesses regarding abuse by the accused to the complainant and Smt. Krithika in filthy language by taking their caste knowing that they belong to 'Scheduled caste'. The witnesses have also spoken about the overt-act of all the three accused.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments made futile attempt to submit that the alleged incident has taken place in the Chambers of the Principal and it is not viewed by the public and therefore the provisions of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 cannot be applicable. At this stage, it appears to me that there is no substance in the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The college is a public place, where children from far off places come to attend the college. Chamber of the Principal situated in college 7 premises is also a public place. At the time of consideration of the application for discharge, what is to be considered is whether the material placed on record by the prosecution is sufficient to constitute an offence alleged or not.
5. In my view, the material placed on record by the prosecution, if not rebutted, is sufficient to constitute the alleged offence and frame the charge against the accused persons. The relevant portion of the statement of one of the witnesses-Vijayan reads as under:-
£Á£ÀÄ F ªÉÄîÌAqÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è ªÁ¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÈwÛAiÀÄ°è ªÀQî£ÁV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÉÛãÉ. £À£ÀUÉ ªÀQîgÁzÀ ªÀĺÁzÉêï gÀªÀgÀÄ ¸ÉßûvÀgÁUÀ¨ÉÃPÀÄ. CªÀgÀ ¥wß ²æêÀÄw PÀÈwPÁgÀªÀgÀÄ EzÉ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆj£À §¸ÀªÉñÉéÃgÀ£ÀUÀgz À À°ègÀĪÀ £ÁrÎÃgï ¥Á°mÉQߣÀ°è G¥À£Áå¸ÀQAiÀiÁV PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ²æêÀÄw PÀÈwPÁgÀªgÀ ÀÄ FUÀ 8 wAUÀ¼À vÀÄA§Ä UÀ§ðªÀwAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÀµÀÖ¥ÀqÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÄ. FVgÀĪÁUÉÎ £ÁrUÉÃgï ¥Á°mÉQßPï£À ¥ÁæA±ÀÄ¥Á®gÁzÀ ªÀÄAdļÁ £ÁrÎÃgï gÀªÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ¥Àw ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÁzÀ £ÁrÎÃgï gÀªÀgÀÄ UÀ¨sÀðªÀwUÉ «±ÁæAwUÁV gÀeÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÉÆqÀzÉ 8 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÉ®¸ÀªÀ£ÀÄß ©lÖgÉ EªÀgÀ ªÀÄÆ® CAPÀ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »AwgÀÄV¸ÀzÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀªÁV §ºÀ¼À £ÉÆìĸÀÄwÛgÀÄvÁÛgAÉ zÀÄ «µÀAiÀÄ w½zÀÄ F §UÉÎ «ZÁgÀ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä £Á£ÀÄ, ªÀQî ¸ÉßûvÀgÁzÀ, zÉêÀgÁd, ¯ÉÆÃPÉñÀ, ±À²PÀĪÀiÁgÀ, ºÀ£ÀĪÀÄAvÀgÁAiÀÄ¥Àà, ºÉÆ£ÀߥÀà ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ¸Áé«Ä ºÁUÀÆ ªÀĺÁzÉÃªï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ CªÀgÀ ¥Àwß PÀÈwPÁ J®ègÀÆ £ÁrÎÃgï ¥Á°mÉQßPï §½ ¢£ÁAPÀ 4/8/2010 gÀAzÀÄ ¨É½UÉÎ 10-30 UÀAmÉUÉ ºÉÆÃV ¦æäì¥Á®gÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw. ªÀÄAdļÁ £ÁrÎÃgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀA¸ÉÞAiÀÄ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ªÀiÁ°PÀgÁzÀ J¸ï.JªÀiï.JªÀiï. £ÁrÎÃgï gÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¨sÉÃn ªÀiÁqÀ¯ÁV KPÁKQ QüÀÄ eÁwAiÀĪÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÁªÀÅ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ vÉUz É ÀÄPÉÆArzÉÝÉ vÀ¥ÀÄà, QüÀÄ eÁwAiÀĪÀgÀÄ AiÀiÁªÀU® À Æ vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆqÀĪÀÅzÉ CªÀgÀ GzÉÝñÀ ¨ÉÆýªÀÄUÀ£É ¤Ã£ÀÄ CªÀ¼À UÀAqÀ CAvÀ PÉüÀĪÀÅzÀPÉÌ §A¢Ý¢AiÀiÁ JAzÀÄ ªÀĺÁzÉêÀgÀªÀgÀ PÀÄwÛUÉ ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »rzÀÄ £ÁrÎÃgï gÀªÀgÀ ªÀÄUÀ J¼ÉzÁrzÀ£ÀÄ. ¥ÁæA±ÀÄ¥Á®gÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw ªÀÄAdļÁ £ÁrÎÃgï gÀªÀgÀÄ ²æêÀÄw PÀÈwPÁgÀªÀgÀ£ÀÄß UÀ©ðt JA§ÄzÀ£ÀÄß ¯ÉQ̸ÀzÉ ªÀÄ£À§AzÀvÉ ¨ÉÊAiÀÄÝzÀ®èzÉ, vÀ¼ÁîlzÀ°è ²æêÀÄw PÀÈwPÁgÀªÀgÀÄ C¯Éè ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ PÉÆoÀrAiÀÄ°è PÀĹzÀÄ ©zÀÝgÀÄ. £ÀAvÀgÀ ¥ÁæA±ÀÄ¥Á®gÁzÀ ²æêÀÄw ªÀÄAdļÁ£ÁrÎÃgï ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÁzÀ ²æà J¸ï.JA.JA. £ÁrÎÃgï gÀªÀgÀÄ 9 18,000/- ¸Á«gÀ gÀÆUÀ¼À£ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ ¤ªÀÄä CAPÀ¥ÀnÖAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¥ÀqÉzÀÄPÉÆ½î ªÀÄvÉÛãÁzÀgÀÆ §AzÀÄ CAPÀ¥ÀnÖAiÉÄAzÀÄ PÀÆUÁrzÀgÉ ¤ªÀÄä fêÀ G½¸ÀĪÀÅ¢®èªÉAzÀÄ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÀgÀÄ. EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃvÁå PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉƼÀî¨ÉPAÉ zÀÄ PÉýPÉƼÀÄîvÉÛãÉ. £Á£ÀÄ CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß £ÉÆÃrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É ªÀÄvÉÛ £ÉÆÃrzÀgÉ UÀÄgÀÄw¸ÀÄvÉÛãÉ.
The other witnesses have also given their statements in the same line as that of Vijayan. Thus the learned Sessions Judge upon perusal of the complaint, statement of the witnesses and other material placed on record by the prosecution, has rightly come to the conclusion that there is material to frame charge against the accused persons, which made him to reject the application. I do not find any fault with the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
6. Hence, I pass the following order:-
Criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE *mn/-