Sri A Ramesh vs State Of Karnataka on 1 June, 2017

[Cites 17, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri A Ramesh vs State Of Karnataka on 1 June, 2017

Bench: K.N.Phaneendra

                        -1-


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 01ST DAY OF JUNE, 2017

                     BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.N.PHANEENDRA

         CRIMINAL PETITION No.7095/2014

BETWEEN:

SRI. A. RAMESH
S/O LATE R. ANKAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
WORKING AS POLICE CONSTABLE,
BESCOM VIGILANCE,
CHANNAPATTANA RURAL POLICE STATION,
CHANNAPATTANA,
RAMANAGAR DISTRICT,
PIN - 571 501.

AND ALSO:

RESIDING AT NO.4233,
VENKATESWARA NILAYA,
HANUMANTHANAGARA,
CHANNAPATTANA TOWN,
RAMANAGARA DISTRICT,
PIN - 571 501.                         ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI: R.V. SHIVANANDA REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.
NANJUNDA GOWDA M.R., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA
     BY HALASURUGATE POLICE STATION,
     BANGALORE - 560 002.
                            -2-


2.   SRI. VEERABHADRAIAH,
     POLICE SUB-INSPECTOR,
     DIRECTOR of CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT CELL,
     BANGALORE DIVISION,
     BANGALORE - 560 001.           ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI: SANDESH J. CHONTA, SPP-II FOR R-1; SRI. C.
JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

                         *****

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C
PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN CRIME
NO.277/2014 OF HALASURU GATE POLICE WHICH IS
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE (CCH-17) AT BANGALORE.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON                 FOR
ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE                    THE
FOLLOWING :


                       ORDER

Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and perused the records.

2. The petitioner has sought for quashing of the first information report, registered in Cr.No.277/2014 for the offences punishable under Sections 177, 181, 199, 120(B), 201, 419, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 471, 472 of IPC read with Section 3(1)(IX) of Scheduled Castes and -3- Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ("the Act" for short) and also to quash the proceedings pending before the City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-17) (Special Court).

3. The brief allegations as could be seen from the FIR is that the accused/petitioner Sri Ramesh, son of late R.Ankaiah, originally belonged to Modaliar Pillai Caste, but on 6/6/1981, he had taken a false certificate as he belongs to Adi Dravida caste by community and on the basis of such false certificate, he has obtained job from the Government of Karnataka as Police Constable. In order to enquire into the matter, the police have started investigating the matter. The investigation is still under progress. Learned counsel submitted that though the FIR is registered in the year 2014, no charge sheet is filed before the court.

4. Per contra, learned special counsel appearing for the respondents strenuously contends that there is certain procedure that should be followed before filing the charge sheet. Merely because the FIR is filed with regard -4- to misuse of the caste certificate, the police cannot automatically investigate the matter and file charge sheet. The police have to wait for the enquiry the matter under Rule 7-A of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (Reservation of Appointments, etc.) Rules, 1992. In fact, learned counsel submitted that, the said procedure has been followed and recently the competent authority i.e., the District Caste Verification Committee has taken up the matter and passed appropriate orders nullifying the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner herein.

5. Looking into the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I feel that, as the filing of the charge sheet is delayed because of certain procedural barricades, that itself is not sufficient to quash the entire proceedings. When the allegations made in the FIR constitute an offence under various provisions of the said Act and Indian Penal Code. Therefore, at this stage, the proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. cannot be entertained. However, if the Verification Committee has not passed any order and if -5- the charge sheet is filed without following such procedure and if the court takes cognizance, then only the petitioner may get an opportunity to be heard. In the above said circumstances, at this stage it is too premature to quash the proceedings. Hence, the petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, it is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to approach this court if the cognizance is taken on any charge sheet, is filed.

Sd/-

JUDGE S*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court