Karnataka High Court
Smt Chandrakantha vs State Of Karnataka on 24 August, 2020
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2020
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
CRIMINAL PETITION No.1869/2020
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. CHANDRAKANTHA
WIFE OF SRI VISHWANATH
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS.
2. SRI. VISHWANATH B.R
SON OF LATE RANGASWAMY
AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS.
PETITIONER NO. 1 AND 2 ARE R/AT
NO. 16, MODEL HOUSE STREET
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU - 560 004.
3. SRI. MANJUNATH GOWDA
SON OF SRI SHRINIVASAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT NO.51
SURABHINAGAR, KOTHANURU
VADDARAPALYA
BANGALORE - 560 078.
..PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. CHETHAN. B.C., ADVOCATE FOR
M/S LEX FIRM, FOR THE PETITIONERS)
2
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATION HOUSE OFFICER
KONANAKUNTE POLICE STATION
BENGALURU
REPRESENTED BY STATE P P
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
BENGALURU.
2. SRI. G.P SAMPANGI
SON OF LATE PAPANNA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
R/AT NO.14/6, R.K.LAYOUT,
SHANKARANAGAR ROAD,
GOTTIGERE POST,
BENGALURU - 560 083.
..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K. NAGESHWARAPPA, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED, UNREPRESENTED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
438 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO ENLARGE THE PETITIONER
ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF HIS ARREST IN CR.NO.
280/2019 OF KONANAKUNATE P.S., BENGALURU FOR THE
OFFENCE P/U/S.420, 506 OF IPC R/W SEC.3(1)(r) AND
3(1)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT 1989.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
ORDER
This petition is filed by the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3 under Section 438 of Cr.P.C in Crime No.280/2019 of Konankunte Police Station for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC read with Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 which is pending before the concerned Special Court seeking anticipatory bail.
2. Initially, a private complaint came to be filed in PCR No.50/2019 for the said offences and later the same was referred to the concerned police station for investigation and submitting a charge sheet. The police are making hectic efforts to arrest the accused.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State appearing through Video Conferencing. Notice against the respondent 4 No.2 said to be the complainant has been served, but he is unrepresented.
4. It is stated in the complaint in PCR No.50/2019 that the respondent No.2/complainant is the absolute owner having possession and enjoyment of the land property bearing site No.38/1, katha No.6/9, situated in the limits of Gottigere village, Uttarahalli hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, now comes under the BBMP ward No.194, which is narrated in detail by the complainant in para 3 of this petition and so also the offences by referring Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C for investigation and to submit a charge sheet.
5. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his argument by referring to the ingredients of the aforesaid Sections leveled against the accused including the Sections for the offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, he submits that the case in O.S.No.1385/2019 is pending between the 5 plaintiff and the defendants on the file of II Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division - Bengaluru Rural District. The respondent No.2 who is the complainant has filed one more suit for relief of injunction against these petitioners, who are arraigned as accused in Crime No.280/2019. The allegation made against these accused do not constitute the offences as it is civil in nature. The learned counsel in support of his submission refers to the judgment of the Apex Court in Pruthvi Raj Chauhan vs. Union of India reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 159. However, the learned counsel has not furnished the copy of the judgment for the purpose of reference. In addition to his submission, further he submits that the police are making hectic efforts to arrest these accused without there being any reason for having committed the alleged offences. The petitioners are ready to abide by any conditions imposed by this Court. Therefore, considering the grounds urges in this petition, the petitioners may be granted anticipatory bail.
6
6. Per contra, learned HCGP for the respondent-State submits that the respondent No.2 said to be the complainant in PCR No.50/2019 initiated private complaint against the accused before the Special Court for the offences under Sections 420 and 506 of IPC and also the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989, which is reflected in FIR in Crime No.280/2019. However, subsequent to registration of the case against the accused by Konankunte Police Station, the accused are absconding since the date of offences and case is still under investigation by the Investigating Officer. There is an expressive bar to Section 18(A) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989. Therefore, the petitioners are not entitled for anticipatory bail . Hence, prays for dismissal of the bail petition.
7. Having regard to the contentions taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners by referring the contents in 7 the FIR said to have been recorded by the police in Crime No.280/2019 of Konankunte Police Station, the respondent No.2 said to be the complainant initiated a private complaint against the accused in PCR No.50/2019 for the aforesaid offences, but subsequent to filing of private complaint, the case came to be referred to the jurisdictional police i.e., Konankunte Police Station under Section 156 (3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and to submit a report. The petitioner No.1 purchased the property from the vendor of the complainant/respondent No.2 who executed a registered Confirmation Deed in favour of one Sri S. Ramalingam on 7.3.2012. The Confirmation Deed is produced vide Annexure- J. The complainant -respondent No.2 has filed a suit for injunction against the petitioners/accused in O.S.No.1385/2019 which is pending for adjudication between the plaintiff and the defendant on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge, Junior Division - Bengaluru Rural District. A Copy of the plaint in O.S.No.1385/2019 is produced vide 8 Annexure-P by the learned counsel for the petitioners for reference and also to consider the grounds urged in this petition for seeking anticipatory bail. Section 18(A) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 2015 reads thus:
"18A. (1) For the purposes of this Act:
(a) preliminary enquiry shall not be required for registration of a First Information Report against any person; or
(b) the investigating officer shall not require approval for the arrest, if necessary, of any person, against whom an accusation of having committed an offence under this Act has been made and no procedure other than that provided under this Act or the Code shall apply.
(2) The provisions of section 438 of the Code shall not apply to a case under this Act, notwithstanding any judgment or order or direction of any Court.".9
8. There is an imperative bar to entertain the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail for the offences leveled against the accused. Though the notice on respondent No.2/complainant has been served, he has remained absent. The judgment referred by the learned counsel for the petitioners supra, which states that if the complainant has not established the case relating the offences under the relevant provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, only after establishment of the case against the accused, the matter has to be looked into. Subsequent to referring the case against the accused before the Konankunte Police Station under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and submitting a investigating report, at this stage it cannot be said that whether there is specific ingredient to constitute the offences under SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Therefore, the submissions made by the learned counsel for 10 the petitioners do not hold any force to consider the grounds urged in this petition for grant of anticipatory bail as sought.
9. However, the case is of a civil nature which is pending between the complainant and the accused in O.S.No.1385/2019. Therefore, the grounds urged in this petition do not require to be entertained for grant of anticipatory bail as there is an imperative bar to entertain the petition filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The case is still under investigation by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, at this stage, it cannot be said that there is no ingredient to constitute the offences against the accused under the provisions of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, and also offences under the Indian Penal Code. Therefore, the petitioners do not deserve any relief of anticipatory bail. The case in O.S.No.1127/2019 is filed by petitioner No.1 herein arraigned as accused No.1 for declaration and injunction relating to the property depicted therein against the defendants. But the said case is pending on the file of the 11 Court of IV Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District.
10. However, keeping in view the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners and also the offences said to be involved by the accused as per the private complaint filed by the complainant before the Special Court and also referring the said case to the jurisdictional police under Section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. for investigation and submitting a report, it is directed that the petitioners /accused shall surrender/appear before the Special Court relating to the case in Crime No.280/2019 of Konankunte Police Station within a period of seven days from the date of this order. The petitioners/accused shall make an application under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure before the Special Court for bail and the learned SPP shall be permitted to file statement of objections, if any, to the aforesaid application. The concerned Court shall dispose of the bail application on the same day on merits 12 without getting influenced by any of the observations made in this order.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
JUDGE SA