Karnataka High Court
Ramesh Basappa Teli vs State Of Karnataka on 29 November, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G.UMA
CRL.P.NO.101480/2014
BETWEEN :
1. RAMESH BASAPPA TELI
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: POLITICS,
R/O. KEMPAWAD, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
2. BALESH TAYAPPA ATAPATKAR
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: POLITICS
R/O. NAVALIHAL, TQ: ATHANI
DIST: BELGAUM.
3. SATAPPA MALAGOUDA PATIL
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: POLITICS
R/O. NAVALIHAL, TQ: ATHANI
DIST: BELGAUM.
4. SANJU SAVANT (MOKASHI)
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: POLITICS,
R/O. KEMPAWAD, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
5. DEEPAK BABU KAMBLE
AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: POLITICS
R/O. NAVALIHAL, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
6. PADMAKAR MANOHAR DHALE
AGE: 35 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. NAVALIHAL, TQ: ATHANI
DIST: BELGAUM.
7. VIKRAM MANOHAR DHALE
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O. NAVALIHAL, TQ: ATHANI
DIST: BELGAUM.
2
8. UTTAM BABU KAMBLE,
AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: DRIVER,
R/O. NAVALIHAL, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELGAUM.
9. SUDHAKAR SHEDBALE
AGE: 32 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE
R/O. KEMPAWAD, TQ: ATHANI
DIST: BELGAUM.
10. SRIMANT GALLI, (PATIL)
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: NIL
R/O. KEMPAWAD, TQ: ATHANI
DIST: BELGAUM.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI M.B.GUNDAWADE, ADV.)
AND
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH, AT DHARWAD,
THROUGH S.P. BELGAUM
2. MANJULA DHONDIBA SHERKHANE,
AGE 48 YEARS, OCC:HOUSEHOLD,
R/O NAVALIHAL, TQ: ATHANI,
DIST: BELGAUM
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1
SRI DEEPAK S.KULKARNI, ADV, FOR R.2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINS PERTAINING
TO S.C.NO.181/2014 ARISING OUT OF PRIVATE COMPLAINT
NO.15/2012, ON THE FILE OF III ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE BELGAUM FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES
UNDER SECTION 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506, 109
511 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(I)(II)(X)
OF S.C/S.T P.O.A. ACT IN SO FAR PETITIONER IS
CONCERNED.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
3
: ORDER :
The petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 12
are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them, which is now pending in S.C.No.181/2014 on the file of the III Additional District and Sessions Court, Belagavi ("the Trial Court" for short) for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506, 109 and 511 read with Section 149 of IPC and under Section 3(I)(II)(X) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ("the SC/ST Act" for short) insofar as the petitioners are concerned.
2. Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 being the complainant filed the private complaint in PC.No.15/2012 before the Trial Court against accused Nos.1 to 12, alleging commission of the offences as stated above. The complainant stated that she and her family members belong to the 4 schedule caste and eking out their livelihood, by doing coolie work. On 19.08.2012 at about 8.00 a.m., when her children Anil Dondiba Sherkhane, Navarang Dondiba Sherkhane and Popat Dondiba Sherkhane were ready to go for coolie work, accused Nos.1 to 12 along with 13 other persons named in the complaint illegally restrained them and criminally intimidated to cause their death by showing the machete, sickle, axe and club.
3. All the children of the complainant were kidnapped in the two Jeeps bearing registration Nos.MH.09.G.2092 and No.KA.23/A.2736. There was also another Jeep without any registration number. Victims were taken to the farm land of accused No.5 Deepak Babu Kamble, situated in Navalihal Village and they were tied a tree. Accused No.1, 2 and 5 have snatched the cash and mobile phones from the victims. Accused have also took out two diesel cans and tried to pour the diesel on the victims with an 5 intention to cause their death. In the meantime, the Police came to the spot. On seeing them accused have fled. The police have untied the victims and taken them to police station. But however, the police have assaulted the victims by colluding with the accused and registered Crime No.129/2012 against the victims. Even though the accused have committed serious offences including one under Section 307 of IPC and under the provisions of SC/ST Act, the police registered the FIR for simple offences i.e., offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 of IPC in Crime No.130/2012 against the accused.
4. It is stated that, the accused forming themselves into an unlawful assembly with an intention to cause death of the victims, kidnapped them, assaulted and criminally intimidated to cause their death. It is stated that, the victims belong to Schedule Caste. Since accused Nos.1 to 4, 11 and 12 6 do not belong to either schedule caste or schedule tribe, they deliberately committed the offences against the petitioners by humiliating them by referring to their caste. Therefore, the complainant requested the police to register the case and to initiate legal action against them.
5. The private complaint was referred for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The police after investigation and filed 'B' summary report stating that there is no such incident that had taken place and there is no substance in the allegations made in the complaint. Thereafter the complainant filed the protest petition in the form of objections to 'B' summary report. The sworn statements of the complainant and four other witnesses were recorded by examining them as PWs.1 to 5. On the basis of these materials, the learned magistrate took cognizance of the offences under the impugned order dated 31.07.2014.
7
6. Being aggrieved by the impugned order taking cognizance of the offenses, the petitioners are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.
7. Heard Sri M.B.Gundawade, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Praveen K.Uppar learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1- State and Sri Deepak.S.Kulkarni, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that, these petitioners have not committed any offences as alleged. They are arrayed as accused Nos.1 to 5 and 7 to 12 without any basis. After due investigation the Investigating Officer filed the 'B' report. The Trial Court without rejecting the 'B' report proceeded to record the sworn statements of the witnesses and proceeded to take cognizance of the offences. The complainant has not made it clear that she belongs to Schedule caste or Schedule Tribe. It is 8 also not stated that the accused do not belong to either of the said castes. Under such circumstances, the provisions of SC/ST Act could not have been invoked.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners relied on the decision of this Court in Ravikumar Vs. KMC Vasantha and others1 to contend that, the 'B' report filed by the Investigating Officer is to be considered by the learned magistrate and after applying the mind, the cognizance could be taken only after rejection of the said 'B' report. Therefore, the learned counsel submits that, in the present case, learned magistrate proceeded to take cognizance of the offence, but the 'B' report filed by the Investigating Officer is not rejected. Therefore, there is procedural irregularity committed by the learned magistrate.
1 Crl.P.No.536 of 2017 9
10. Learned counsel further submitted that, there is no specific reference to any of the accused for having committed the offences. The learned magistrate ignored this fact as well and proceeded to take cognizance of the offence. Sworn statements of PWs.1 to 5 are quite contrary to the first information lodged by the informant who is not an eye witness at all. Under such circumstances, no offence as alleged is made out. Therefore, criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners are liable to be quashed and he prays for allowing the petition,
11. Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State and learned counsel for respondent No.2-complainant opposing the petition submitted that, even though the complainant lodged the first information with the police, they refused to receive the same and on the other hand registered the criminal case against the informant and her family members who are victims of 10 crime, by registering FIR in Crime No.129/2012. When the complainant insisted for registration of the case, a formal complaint was registered in Crime No.130/2012 without invoking the serious offences under Section 307 of IPC and under the provisions of SC/ST Act. Therefore the private complaint was came to be filed before the Trial Court in P.C.No.15/2012 which was referred for investigation to the very same police station. Naturally the police filed the 'B' summary report stating that there are absolutely no materials to constitute the offences.
12. The Trial Court considered the said 'B' report in the light of the petition and also sworn statement of PWs.1 to 5 and formed an opinion that the Investigating Officer has obliged for the influential accused and has filed 'B' report. Therefore, the Trial Court proceeded to take cognizance of the offence. There is no irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Trial Court. Looking to the 11 seriousness of the offences the petitioners have to face the trial.
13. Learned counsel further submitted that there is specific reference to the caste of the informant, victims and the accused. The overt-act on the part of the accused and also about the unlawful assembly of the accused were mentioned in the complaint. Under such circumstances, it is premature to form an opinion that there are no specific allegations against each of the accused and that there is contradictions in the statements of the witnesses. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the petition.
14. Perused the materials on record including the impugned order.
15. In the light of the rival contentions, the point that would arise for consideration of this Court is as under:
"Whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioners in S.C.No.181/2014 on 12 the file of the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506, 109, 511 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3I9(I)(II)(X) of SC/ST Act is liable to be quashed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.?
16. My answer to the above point is 'partly in the affirmative' for the following :
: REASONS :
17. Materials placed before the Court disclose that the complainant filed the private complaint before the Trial Court in P.C.No.15/2012 making specific allegations against accused Nos.1 to 12 and 13 other persons and alleged specific overt-act against them as stated above.
18. It is also stated that, the victims i.e., three sons of the complainant were tied to a tree, they were assaulted, the money and the mobile phones etc were snatched and also the accused tried to pour diesel on them with an intention to cause their death. In the meantime, the police came and untied the 13 victim. It is also stated that even though such a gruesome incident had occurred, the police registered the Crime No.129/2012 against the victims themselves and thereafter a nominal FIR was registered in Crime No.130/2012 without invoking Sections 323, 326, 307 of IPC or the provisions of SC/ST Act.
19. In the light of these allegations made in the complaint, I have considered the materials on record, in the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
20. The first contention taken by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the complaint has not made clear about her caste and the case of the victims. But the complaint clearly discloses that the complainant belongs to Schedule caste. There is also reference to the caste of accused Nos.1 to 4 and 11 & 12 to state that they do not belong to schedule caste. But on the other hand, they are Lingaythas, Jains or 14 from Uppar community. However, admittedly, accused Nos.5, 7 to 10 belong to schedule caste and therefore, the provisions of SC/ST Act could not have been invoked against them.
21. The next contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is no specific allegation against each of the accused to constitute any of the offences. This contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners also cannot be accepted in view of the specific allegations made in the complaint against many of the accused persons. Moreover the sworn statements of PWs.1 to 5 recorded before the Trial court where they referred to the names of the accused and also say that all the accused have came to the spot, formed unlawful assembly and committed the offence. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that there are absolutely no allegations against the accused at all.
15
22. The third ground raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that, the learned magistrate committed an error in taking cognizance of the offence without rejecting the 'B' report filed by the Investigating Officer. In this regard reliance is placed on the decision of Ravikumar (supra) wherein coordinate Bench of this Court laid down the procedure for taking cognizance of the offence after submission of the 'B' summary report. This Court held that the learned magistrate is required to follow the procedure which is well recognized under law. It is stated that when the police submitted 'B' summary report and the protest petition is filed to the same, irrespective of contents of protest petition, Court has to examine the contents of 'B' summary report so as to ascertain whether the police have done investigation in a proper manner or not and if the Court is of the opinion that the investigation has not been conducted properly, the coordinate Bench of this Court relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex 16 Court, laid down the procedure to be followed. Under such circumstances, it is stated that, if the Court is of the opinion that 'B' summary report submitted by the police has to be rejected, then exercising its judicious opinion, after applying its mind to the contents of the 'B' summary report, the Court has to reject the 'B' summary report.
23. In the light of the said decision, I have gone through the impugned order passed by the trial court. The trial Court has referred to the contents of the private complaint lodged by the complainant along with sworn statements of PWs.1 o 5. Further it refers to the contents of the 'B' summary report filed by the investigating officer. In para No.2 there is specific reference to 'B' report and reasons assigned by the investigating officer as to why the 'B' report is being filed. The trial Court formed an opinion after going through the 'B' report that the investigating officer might have yielded to the pressure of the 17 accused as the complainant belongs to the oppressed class, the apprised clause as they belong to SC/ST community, whereas the accused belong to the upper caste. Further trial Court also referred to the sworn statement of the witnesses and opined that the investigating officer has not properly conducted the investigation. Therefore, it proceeded to take cognizance of the offences. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the trial Court has not applied its mind or not referred to the 'B' report filed by the investigating officer.
24. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in H.S.Bain, Director, Small, Saving-Cum- Deputy Secretary Finance, Punjab, Bhandigarh Vs State (Union Territory Of Chandigarh)2, to contend that the course open to the Magistrate on receipt of the 'B' summary report is to verify the report and if report suggests that the case against the 2 (1980) 4 Supreme Court Cases 631.
18accused is not made out, the proceedings must be dropped. But, if the Magistrate disagrees with the report, he can proceed to take cognizance of the offences under Section 190 (1) (B) and direct issuance of process.
25. In view of the law laid down on the subject, I am of the opinion that in the present case, the trial Court referred to the complaint, the 'B' report and the sworn statements of PWs.1 to 5 and thereafter expressed its opinion that the investigating officer has not conducted the investigation properly and that he might have yielded to the pressure of the influential accused, which resulted in filing of the 'B' report. Thereafter, the Court proceeded to take cognizance of the offence. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.
26. Even though, it is contended that there is no specific allegations against each of the accused, on going through the private complaint and the sworn 19 statements of the witnesses it is fairly clear that the complainant and the victim refer to the names of several accused and also state that the other accused were also present in the unlawful assembly. Under such circumstances, it cannot be held at this stage that the overtact committed by other accused are not stated specifically by the informant. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are contradictions between the complaint as well as the sworn statements of the witnesses, the same cannot be appreciated at this stage, since, the complainant made out a prima-facie case to proceed against the accused. This Court is not supposed to undertake a mini trial to find out the role of each and every accused to invoke specific penal provisions and to found out whether there are truth or otherwise or to find out whether the contention of the complainant is corroborated or not. Suffice to say at this stage that since there are prima-facie materials against the petitioners for having committed the offence 20 punishable under provisions of IPC, I do not find any reason to quash the criminal proceedings against them.
27. However, as stated above, the complainant specifically states that it is only accused Nos.1 to 4, 11 and 12 are belonging to Lingayat and other community, and as the learned counsel for respondent No.2 fairly conceded that the other petitioners belong to Schedule Caste, the criminal proceedings initiated against accused Nos.5, 7, 8 and 10 under the provisions of special enactment i.e., SC/ST Act liable to be quashed. Hence, I answer the above point partly in the affirmative and proceeded to pass the following;
: ORDER :
The criminal petition is partly allowed.
The criminal proceedings initiated against petitioners-accused Nos.5, 7, 8 and 10 in S.C.No.181/2014 (P.C.No.15/2012), on the file of 21 learned III Additional District and Sessions Court, Belagavi, under the provisions of Section 3(I)(II)(X) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is hereby quashed.
Claim of petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 4, 11 and 12 seeking to quash the said criminal proceedings initiated against them under the provisions of Section 3(I)(II)(X) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, is hereby rejected.
Claim of petitioners-accused Nos.1 to 5, 7, 8, 10 to 12 seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in S.C.No.181/2014 (P.C.No.15/2012), on the file of learned III Additional District and Sessions Court, Belagavi for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506, 109 and 511 read with Section 149 of Indian Penal Code, is hereby rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE EM/Para.1 to 23 AM/Para.24 to end.