Sri B C Kemapaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 28 June, 2022

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri B C Kemapaiah vs State Of Karnataka on 28 June, 2022

Bench: Hemant Chandangoudar

                           1


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

                         BEFORE

     THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.2745/2019

BETWEEN:

SRI.B.C.KEMAPAIAH
S/O CHIKKAHUDUGAIAH
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
R/AT HALEVOORU
HULIYURUDURGA HOBLI
KUNIGAL TALUK, TUMAKURU - 572 123
WORKING AS PRESIDENT
TEMPLE MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
SHREE HULIYURAMMA TEMPLE
HALEVOORU, HULIYURUDURGA
KUNIGAL TALUK - 572 123        ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI.VENUGOPAL M S, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.      STATE OF KARNATAKA
        REP. BY HULIYURUDURGA POLICE
        KUNIGAL CIRCLE, TUMAKURU
        REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
        HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
        DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
        BENGALURU - 560 001

2.      A N MANJU
        S/O NARAYANASWAMY
        AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
                            2


     R/O ANANTHAHALLI
     HULIYURUDURGA HOBLI
     KUNIGAL TALUK
     TUMAKURU - 572 123          ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.ROHITH B J, HCGP FOR R-1;
     R-2 IS SERVED )

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION
482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME
NO.47/2019 REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE
AGAINST THE PETITIONER HEREIN ON THE COMPLAINT
LODGED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT FOR OFFENCE
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(c), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)
AND 3(2) (v-a) of SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
ACT AND SECTIONS 504 AND 506 OF IPC, ON THE FILE OF
3RD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
TUMAKURU.


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

                        ORDER

FIR was lodged by the second respondent alleging that on 24.01.2018 when he was working as Assistant in the temple office, of which the accused is the President, he was abused in filthy language by referring to his caste by the accused. 3

2. The police registered the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(c), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Atrocities Act' for short). Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the alleged incident has taken place on 24.01.2018 and the FIR was lodged on 23.03.2019 without offering any plausible explanation which clearly implies that the FIR was lodged as an after thought with a ulterior motive to wreck vengeance against the accused. He further submits that the alleged incident has not taken within the public view so as to attract the offence punishable under the Attrocities Act.

4. On the other hand, learned HCGP submits that the allegations made in the FIR clearly disclose the commission of the offence alleged against the petitioner and the registration of the FIR cannot be interfered with.

5. The alleged incident has taken place on 24.01.2018 and the FIR was lodged on 23.03.2019 i.e., after lapse of one year two months from the date of alleged incident without offering any plausible explanation. The Apex Court in State of Andhra Pradesh vs. Madhusudan Rao1 at para 30 has held as follows:

"30. Time and again, the object and importance of prompt lodging of the first information report has been highlighted. Delay in lodging the first information report, more often than not, results in embellishment and exaggeration, which is a creature of an afterthought. A delayed report not only gets 1 (2008)15 SCC 582 5 bereft of the advantage of spontaneity, the danger of the introduction of a coloured version, an exaggerated account of the incident or a concocted story as a result of deliberations and consultations, also creeps in, casting a serious doubt on its veracity.

Therefore, it is essential that the delay in lodging the report should be satisfactorily explained."

6. The alleged incident has taken place in the office of the temple and not within the public view so as to constitute the commission of offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Atrocities Act.

7. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the FIR was lodged as an after thought to falsely implicate the accused with revengeful intent. Accordingly, I pass the following:

ORDER

i) Criminal petition is allowed.

ii) The impugned first information report in Crime No.47/2019 registered by the Huliyurduga Police Station is hereby quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE AKC

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court