Sri Vilas Bhormalji Oswal vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2025

[Cites 18, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Sri Vilas Bhormalji Oswal vs State Of Karnataka on 2 June, 2025

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

Reserved on : 21.03.2025
Pronounced on : 02.06.2025
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF JUNE, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

CRIMINAL PETITION No.5584 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

SRI VILAS BHORMALJI OSWAL
S/O BORMALJI OSWAL
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
RESIDING AT BLOCK NO. 7
KONARK PLAZA, 27 RAILWAY LINE
SOLAPUR NORTH, SOLAPUR
MAHARASTRA STATE.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SHRINATH KULKARNI, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY JAYANAGAR POLICE STATION
REP. BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560 001.

2. SRI SOMASHEKARA
S/O LATE BASANNA R.,
AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO. 201
2

3RD FLOOR, SRI NILAYA
NO. 95/5, 28TH BC, 14TH MAIN
4TH BLOCK, 4TH MAIN, EAST JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 011.
... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI JAGADEESHA B.N., ADDL.SPP FOR R-1;
SRI MOHAMMED SULTAN BEARY, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET AND ITS
FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.CASE NO.943/2024, FILED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1/JAYANAGAR POLICE BENGALURU, FOR THE
ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/S 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT 1989 AND UNDER SEC.504, 506 OF IPC ON THE
COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT / COMPLAINANT,
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPL.JUDGE BENGALURU.

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 21.03.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

CAV ORDER

The petitioner/accused is at the doors of this Court calling in

question proceedings in Special Case No.943 of 2024 pending
3

before the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special

Judge at Bengaluru, arising out of crime in Crime No.126 of 2024,

registered for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),

3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Act' for short) and Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC.

2. Facts, adumbrated are as follows: -

The 2nd respondent is the complainant. It is the case of the

prosecution that the 2nd respondent and the petitioner along with

two others were partners in the business of real estate established

in the name and style of 'Green Land Infra' in Bangalore City. The

firm is registered on 28-01-2011. On 08.08.2011, the petitioner

along with his wife and one witness CW-6/Mohan Kagadala joined

the firm as business partners. The agreement between the partners

was said to be that the complainant will be appointed as the

Managing Director and the petitioner would be nominated as a Joint

Signatory Authority. All the partners come together with a vision to

develop the lands belonging to the local farmers. Time passed by,

after about a decade of the said partnership, dispute arose between
4

the partners particularly, between the petitioner and the 2nd

respondent, on the score that the petitioner did not sign several

documents pertaining to the firm, due to which, the development at

various places was stalled. An incident is narrated that comes

about on 23-12-2020, when the petitioner called the 2nd

respondent/complainant over phone and asked him to come near

MES ground at Jayanagar. The two met on the location.

3. It is further alleged that the petitioner had threatened the

2nd respondent with dire consequence, if the petitioner did not

receive his invested money back from the firm. The further

narration is that, the petitioner has hurled abuses referring to the

caste of the complainant. On the said incident, a complaint was

initially registered before the Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement

(hereinafter referred to as 'DCRE') on 20-04-2021 by the 2nd

respondent. The delay of four months in taking the complaint to

DCRE was also explained. The DCRE keeps the complaint for over

three years and on 01-04-2024, directs registration of a crime. It

is thus, the crime is registered before the jurisdictional Police on

06-04-2024, for the afore-quoted offences. The incident in the
5

crime is said to have taken place on 23-12-2020. After registration

of crime, the Police conduct investigation and file a charge sheet

against the petitioner for the offences quoted supra. Filing of the

charge sheet and issuance of summons has driven the petitioner to

this Court in the subject petition.

4. This Court interdicts further proceedings against the

petitioner by grant of an interim order on 10-07-2024. This comes

to be challenged by the complainant before the Apex Court. The

Apex Court rejects the Special Leave Petition, reserving liberty to

the complainant to seek vacation of the interim order. An

application is filed by the complainant seeking vacation of the

interim order. The matter is heard at that stage with the consent of

parties.

5. Heard Sri Shrinath Kulkarni, learned counsel appearing for

the petitioner, Sri B.N.Jagadeesha, learned Additional Special Public

Prosecutor for respondent No.1 and Sri Mohammed Sultan Beary,

learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
6

RIVAL SUBMISSIONS UNFURLED:

ACCUSED:

6. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would

contend that an incident that took place on 23-12-2020 is

complained of even before the DCRE on 20-04-2021, which is four

months after the incident. The crime then comes to be registered

on 06-04-2024, which is close to four years after the incident.

Notwithstanding the said delay, the Police conduct investigation and

file a charge sheet. The concerned Court takes cognizance of the

offence on 07-06-2024 and registered a case in Special Case

No.943 of 2024. Projecting the aforesaid date, the learned counsel

would seek to contend that there has been gross delay at every

stage. He would contend that it was always open to the

complainant to register the complaint before the jurisdictional police

or before the concerned Court invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C.

But, the complainant chose to go before the DCRE.

7. The allegation in the complaint is that, the petitioner has

abused the complainant taking the name of his caste. On a perusal
7

of the complaint, the learned counsel would submit that what the

petitioner has uttered is 'do not show your caste mindset '. This

has become the offence under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Act.

The learned counsel would submit that permitting further trial in the

case at hand would become an abuse of the process of law for the

reason that the petitioner and the complainant were partners in the

same firm. The partnership turns into a dispute. To settle scores

with the petitioner, the complainant has now registered the

complaint bringing in a multipronged attack against the petitioner.

He would further contend that so called eyewitnesses in the case,

are known to the complainant for four decades and a decade

respectively, and they are residents at different locations. They

cannot be eyewitnesses at all in the case at hand. He would seek

quashment of the proceedings.

Respondent

COMPLAINANT'S:

8. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the 2nd

respondent/complainant would take this Court through the

backdrop of the allegations. The petitioner joins 'Green Land Infra'
8

along with his wife; reducing the share of the two to 12.5%, they

have joined as managing partners. Dispute arose between the

petitioner and the complainant on account of the petitioner abruptly

generating non-cooperation with the complainant in the year 2013.

It appears, that the dispute ended up by closure of the business on

15-01-2016. Between 2016 and 2020, the projects that were half

done were sought to be completed. The entire incident that is

alleged has happened on 23.12.2020, when the petitioner calls the

complainant to a ground and abuses him. This is witnessed by two

eyewitnesses one C.Mahesh and Kanakachala. Four months

thereafter, the complainant approaches DCRE. The DCRE holds the

complaint for four years. Then, on 12-02-2024 records the

statement of the petitioner and the complainant; on 11-03-2024

and 13.03.2024, the eyewitnesses respectively rendered their

statements before the DCRE. The report of the DCRE was prepared

and recommendation was made to the Jayanagar Police Station to

It is then the proceedings have taken place. He would submit that

the petitioner knew that the complainant belongs to a Scheduled

Caste as he was his partner and knowing fully well, he has hurled
9

abuses in the playground, which is witnessed by two eyewitnesses.

He would submit that the Police after thorough investigation have

filed a charge sheet and, therefore, the proceedings must be

permitted to be continued, failing which, would be putting a

premium on the hurling of abuses by the petitioner upon the

complainant. He would seek dismissal of the petition.

STATE:

9. The learned Additional State Public Prosecutor for the State

would also toe the lines of the learned counsel representing the

complainant in contending that delay in transmitting the complaint

by the DCRE should not go against the complainant as the

complainant has diligently registered the complaint before the

DCRE. Since charge sheet is filed, the Additional State Public

Prosecutor seeks dismissal of the petition.

10. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions

made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the

material on record.
10

CONSIDERATION:

The chronicle of facts:

11. The afore-narrated facts though not in dispute would

require reiteration for a link in the chain of events. The petitioner

and the complainant and two others form partnership firm, M/s

Green Land Infra. The complainant is said to be an expert in land

development. The firm comes into existence on 08-08-2011 with

certain shares between the petitioner, the complainant and others.

The operations in the firm were smooth till the year 2013. Disputes

arose between the partners of the firm with regard to finances.

Owing to the said dispute, the projects that were undertaken by the

partnership firm came to a grinding halt. The firm, on the dispute,

between its partners, ends on 15-01-2016. Therefore, what began

as a cordial partnership soon devolved into a theatre of discord

culminating in its dissolution in the year 2016. Between

15-01-2016 to 2020, it is the averment in the complaint that the

partners kept on dragging execution of the project.

12. Comes the year 2020. The petitioner is said to have

summoned the complainant to MES grounds, Jayanagar at 11-00
11

a.m. and has hurled casteist abuses against the complainant.

Though this incident was on 23-12-2020, the complainant

does not choose to register a complaint immediately before

the jurisdictional Police or before the jurisdictional

Magistrate invoking Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. Instead, after

about 118 days, on 20th April, 2021 the complainant

registers a complaint before the DCRE. The complaint so

registered reads as follows:

" ಾಂಕ 20/4/2021
ರವ ೆ,

ಾನ ೕ ಅ ೕ ಕರು,
ಾಗ ೕಕ ಹಕು ಾ ೇ ಶ ಾಲಯ,
!ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ನಗರ, !ೆಂಗಳ#ರು.

ರವ ಂದ:
%ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ಅ* +,
ಬಸಣ0 1ಾಮದುಗ , 49 ವಷ ,
ಎ .4. ಜ ಾಂಗ, 6ಾಸ ಮ ೆ ನಂ,
201, 3 ೇ ಮಹ7, 89ೕ ಲಯ ಅ:ಾ; <ಂ;,
93/5, 28 ೇ + =ಾ9 , 14 ೇ ಮುಖ ರ%ೆ>,
4 ೇ !ಾ?@ ಪBವ , ಜಯನಗರ,
!ೆಂಗಳ#ರು -560011.
C.9980606060.
ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ,
12

Eಷಯ:- 89ೕ.EFಾ ಬುರುಮG Hೕ ಓ%ಾJG ರವರು K9ೕ, Fಾ ಂL ಇ,Nಾ9
:ಾಲು ಾ =ೆ ಸಂ%ೆOಯ :ಾಲು ಾರ1ಾKದುP, :ಾಲು ಾರರ ವ ವQಾರದ ?
ನನ ೆ ಅ6ಾಚ ಶಬPಗSಂದ !ೈದು ಾU ಂದ ೆ ಾ7, :ಾ9ಣ !ೆದ =ೆ
QಾVಾನ4ಕ Wಂ%ೆ ೕಡುU>ರುವ ಬ ೆY.
****
ಾನು <ೕಲ ಂಡ EZಾಸದ ? 6ಾಸ6ಾKದುP, ಾನು ಈ ೆY 15 ವಷ ಗSಂದ
ಜ\ೕನುಗಳನು] ^ೆ ೆದು=ೊಂಡು ಅದನು] ಮ^ೆ> 6ೇಶನಗಳ ಾ]K Eಂಗ74 ಾ1ಾಟ ಾಡುವ
=ೆಲಸವನು] ಾ7=ೊಂ7ರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ. ಾನು ಎ .4. ಛಲ6ಾ ಾU ೆ %ೇ ದವ ಾKರು^ೆ>ೕ£É. EzÉÃ
vÀgÀºÀ d«ÄÃ£ÀÄUÀಳನು] ಖ ೕ 4 ಅಥ6ಾ 1ೈತ1ೊಂ ೆ :ಾಲು ಾ =ೆ ಅcವೃ e ಾ7
6ೇಶನಗಳ ಾ]K Eಂಗ7ಸುವ ವ ವQಾರದ ? ^ೊಡK4=ೊಂ7 ೆPೕ ೆ. ನನ] Nೆ9ಂL ಆದ 89ೕ
ಮಂಜು ಾg ಕುಲಕh ಮತು> ಇವರ ಸಂಬಂ ಕ1ಾದ 89ೕ. ೕi ಕುಲಕh ಮ^ೆ> ಾನು %ೇ
ಾಂಕ:08/12/2010 ರಂದು ಜಂjೆ :ಾಲು ಾರ1ಾK ವ ವQಾರವನು] :ಾ9ರಂc4. ಇದ=ೆ
ಕkೇ ಯನು] ^ೆ1ೆದು ಅದ=ೆ K9ೕ,Fಾ ಂL ಇ,Nಾ9 ಎಂದು ಾಮಕರಣ ಾ7 ಅ ?
:ಾಲು ಾರ1ಾK ವ ವQಾರವನು] :ಾ9ರಂc4 ೆವl. ನಂತರ ಈ ವ ವQಾರದ ? ಮ^ೆ> 3 ಜನ1ಾದ
89ೕ.EFಾ ಬುರುಮG Hೕ ಓ%ಾJG, ಇವರ ಪU] ಲ ^ಾ E.ಓ%ಾJG Qಾಗೂ Cೕಹ, ಅ*.
ಕಗ ಾಳರವರುಗಳm ಾಂಕ:08/08/2011 ರಂದು :ಾಲು ಾರ1ಾK %ೇ ರು^ಾ>1ೆ. ಇದರ ?
ಾನು ಾ ೇHಂn :ಾಟ ನ* ಆK Fಾಭದ 10%ರ pಾಗವನು] ಸಂpಾವ ೆqಾK ಪrೆಯುವ
µÀgÀwÛUÉ F :ಾಲು ಾ =ೆಯ ? ಾನು ಾ ೇHಂn :ಾಟ ನ* ಆKದುP, ೊ^ೆ ೆ EFಾ
ಓ%ಾJG CªÀgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ ನ ೊ]ಂ ೆ ಈ ವ ವQಾರದ ? ಜಂs ಸW ಾಡಲು ಎFಾ? :ಾಲು ಾರರು
ಒuv ೆ ೕ7ರು^ಾ>1ೆ. ಇದು ೊಂ ಾwತ :ಾಲು ಾರರ ಪತ9 ಆKರುತ> ೆ. EFಾ ಓ%ಾJG
Qಾಗೂ ಲ ^ಾ N¸Áé¯ï ರವರು zÀAಪUಗZಾKದುP, %ೋFಾಪlರದ ? 6ಾ4ಸುU>ರು^ಾ>1ೆ.
ಮಂಜು ಾg ಕುಲಕh =ೊಪvಳದ 6ಾ4qಾKರು^ಾ> ೆ ೕi ಕುಲಕh Qಾಗೂ Cೕಹ,
ಕಗzÁ¼À ರವರು ಗದKನ 6ಾ4qಾK^ಾ>1ೆ, ಾನು ಾತ9 !ೆಂಗಳ# ನ ? 6ಾಸEದುP ಈ
:ಾಲು ಾ =ೆAiÀÄ ಸಂ%ೆOಯನು] ಸಂಪBಣ 6ಾK ಾ ೇ ವ Wಸು^ಾ> ಬಂ ೆPೕ ೆ. ಜಂs
ಸW ಾರ1ಾKರುವ EFಾ ಓ%ಾJG ರವರು =ೇವಲ ಅಗತ E ಾPಗ ಾತ9 ಕ1ೆ ಾಗ +ಡುವl
ಾ7=ೊಂಡು ಬರುU>ದPರು. ಎFಾ? ಉSದ :ಾಲು ಾರರುಗS ೆ ವ ವQಾರದ ಕು ತು ಆKಂ ಾ ೆY
ಸpೆ ಕ1ೆದು USಸFಾಗುU>ತು>.

ಈ :ಾಲು ಾ =ೆ ಸಂ%ೆOಯ7ಯ ? !ೆಂಗಳ# ನ ಹಲವl ಪ9 ೇಶಗಳನು] ಸುU> =ೊ ೆ ೆ
!ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ದyಣ ^ಾಲೂ?Vನ ಉತ>ರಹSz QೋಬSಯ ಗುSಕಮFೆ ಾ9ಮದ ಈ =ೆಳಕಂಡ ಸ6ೆ
ನಂಬರುಗಳ ? =ೆಲವl ಜ\ೕನುಗಳನು] :ಾಲು ಾ =ೆ ಸಂ%ೆOಯ Qೆಸ ನ ? ಕ9ಯ
ಾ7=ೊಂ7ರುತ>6ೆ. ಈ ಜ\ೕ ನ Eವರಗಳm ಈ =ೆಳಕಂಡಂ^ೆ ಇರುತ> ೆ.
13

1. {ಕ ನರ4ಂಹಯ Qಾಗೂ ಇತರ ೆ %ೇ ದ ಜ\ೕನು ಸ6ೆ ನಂ.51/4 ರ ? E4>ೕಣ 4
ಗುಂjೆಸ6ೆ ನಂ.53/8 ರ ? E4>ೕಣ 0.012 (ಮು=ಾ ಲು) ಗುಂjೆ Qಾಗೂ ಸ6ೆ
ನಂ.56/2 ರ ? E4>ೕಣ 1 ಎಕ1ೆ 35.12 ಗಂjೆ, ಒಟು| E4>ೕಣ 2 ಎಕ1ೆ 0.008 ಗುಂjೆ
ಜ\ೕನನು] /19-10-2012 ರಂದು ೆuಎ, 05803/2012/13 ಆK ೆ.u ನಗರ
ಸ} Hಸ|* ಕkೇ ಯ ? ೊಂ ಾw4ರು^ೆ>ೕ6ೆ.

2. ನರಸಮ~ Qಾಗೂ ಇತರ ೆ %ೇ ದ ಜ\ೕನು ಸ6ೆ ನಂ. 58 ರ ? E4>ೕಣ 0.24 ಗಂjೆ
ಜ\ೕನನು] /15-05-2012 ರಂದು ೆuಎ, 01371/2012-13 ಆK ೆ.u ನಗರ
ಸ} Hಸ|* ಕkೇ ಯ ? ೊಂ ಾw4ರು^ೆ>ೕ6ೆ.

3. u. ಾ1ಾಯಣಪv Qಾಗೂ ಇತರ ೆ %ೇ ದ ಜ\ೕನು ಸ6ೆ ನಂ.58 ರ ? E4>ೕಣ 1
ಎಕ1ೆ 5 ಗುಂjೆ /15-05-2012 ರಂದು ೆuಎ, 01370/2012-13 ಆK ೆ.u ನಗರ
ಸ} Hಸ|* ಕkೇ ಯ ? ೊಂ ಾw4ರು^ೆ>ೕ6ೆ.
ಸದ ಸಂ%ೆOಯ Qೆಸ ನ ? 1ೈತ1ೊಂ ೆ ಜಂs ಅcವೃ e ಪತ9ಗಳನು] EEಧ ಸ6ೆ
ನಂಬರುಗS ೆ ಸಂಬಂ 4ದಂ^ೆ ೊಂ ಾw4=ೊಂ7ರುವ ಜ\ೕನುಗಳ Eವರ ಈ =ೆಳಕಂಡಂ^ೆ
ಇರುತ> ೆ.

1. u. ಾ1ಾಯಣಪvರವರ ಜ\ೕನು ಸ6ೆ ನಂ.49 ರ ? E4>ೕಣ 1 ಎಕ1ೆ 5 ಗುಂjೆ, ಸ6ೆ
ನಂ.50 ರ ? E4>ೕಣ 8 ಗುಂjೆ, ಸ6ೆ ನಂ.58 ರ ? E4>ೕಣ 23 ಗುಂjೆ, ಒಟು| E4>ೕಣ
1 ಎಕ1ೆ 36 ಗುಂjೆ ಜ\ೕನನು] //17-09-2012 ರಂದು ೆuಎ, 4833/2012-13
ಆK ೆ.u ನಗರ ಸ} Hಸ|* ಕkೇ ಯ ? ೊಂ ಾw4ರು^ೆ>ೕ6ೆ.

2. ನರಸಮ~ Qಾಗೂ ಇತರರ ಜ\ೕನು ಸ6ೆ ನಂ 47 ರ ? E4>ೕಣ 13 ಗುಂjೆ ಸ6ೆ ನಂ
48 ರ ? E4>ೕಣ 24 S ಗಂjೆ, ಸ6ೆ ನಂ.58 ರ ? E4>ೕಣ 1 ಎಕ1ೆ 12 ಗುಂjೆ, ಒಟು|
ಜ\ೕ ನ E4>ೕಣ 2 ಎಕ1ೆ 9 1/2 ಗುಂjೆ ಜ\ೕನನು] //17-09-2012 ರಂದು
ೆuಎ, 4838/2012-13 ಆK ೆ.u ನಗರ ಸ} Hಸ|* ಕkೇ ಯ ?
ೊಂ ಾw4ರು^ೆ>ೕ6ೆ.

3. ಅರಸಮ~ Qಾಗೂ ಇತರರ ಜ\ೕನು ಸ6ೆ ನಂ 51/1 ರ ? E4>ೕಣ 1 ಎಕ1ೆ 2 ಗುಂjೆ,
ಸ6ೆ ನಂ. 53/7 ರ ? E4>ೕಣ 1 ಎಕ1ೆ 25 ಗುಂjೆ, ಸ6ೆ 57/2 ರ ? E4>ೕಣ 8
ಗುಂjೆ. ಒಟು| d«ÄÃ¤£À E4>ೕಣ 2 ಗುಂjೆ 35 ಜ\ೕನನು] ಾಂಕ//17-09-2012
gÀAzÀÄ 4837/2012-13 ಆK ೆ.u ನಗರ ಸ} Hಸ|* ಕkೇ ಯ ?
ೊಂ ಾw4ರು^ೆ>ೕ6ೆ.
14

4. ಸು•ಾಕ* :ಾ\7 ಮು=ಾ ಲ Qಾಗೂ ಸುಬ9ಮಣ ೇ^ಾHರವರ ಜ\ೕನು ಸ6ೆ
ನಂ.51/2 ರ ? «¹ÛÃtð 1 JPÀgÉ 3 UÀÄAmÉ ¢//21-11-2012 gÀAzÀÄ eÉ¦J£ï
6615/2012-13 DV eÉ.¦. £ÀUÀgÀ ಸ} Hಸ|* ಕkೇ ಯ ? ೊಂ ಾw4ರು^ೆ>ೕ6ೆ.

<ೕಲ ಂಡ ಜ\ೕನುಗS ೆFಾ? K9ೕ, Fಾ ಂL ಇ,Nಾ9 ಸಂ%ೆOಯ7ಯ ? ವ ವQಾರ
ಾಡFಾKರುತ> ೆ. <ೕಲ ಂಡ 6 ಜನರು :ಾಲು ಾರ1ಾK ವ ವQಾರ ನrೆ4=ೊಂಡು
ಬರFಾಗುU>ತು>.

ಆದ1ೆ ಾವl qಾವl ೇ ಸಮ%ೆ wಲ? ೇ <ೕಲ ಂಡ ಜ\ೕ ನ ಅcವೃ P ಾK ಮತು>
ಕ9ಯ ಾ7 ಾ6ೆಲ?ರೂ ಒjಾ|K =ೆಲಸ ಾ7=ೊಂಡು QೋಗುU>ದುP, ಈ ಬ ೆY ಾ6ೆಲ?ರೂ
ಾಂಕ:24/08/2013ರ ? ಸ!ೆಯನು] ಏಪ 74, ಸದ ಸpೆಯ ? ಅ=ೌಂ;ನFಾ?ಗ ೕ ಅಥ6ಾ
ಇತ1ೆ !ೇ1ೆ qಾವlದರಲೂ? qಾವl ೇ ಸಮ%ೆ ಇರುವl ಲ?6ೆಂದು ಸWಯನು] ಾ7ರು^ಾ>1ೆ.
WೕKರು6ಾಗ 89ೕ.EFಾ ಓ%ಾJG ರವರು ಏ=ಾಏVqಾK ಸಹ=ಾರ ಾಡುವlದನು] ?4ದರು,
ಈ ಬ ೆY ಾನು ಅವ ೆ %ಾಕಷು| <ೕGಗಳನು] ಕಳmW4 =ೇಳFಾK qಾವl ೇ ೕUಯ ?
ಸvಂ ಸ ೇ ಕkೇ ಯ !ಾ7 ೆqಾಗ ೕ ಅಥ6ಾ 4ಬ„ಂ ಯ ಸಂಬಳವ ಾ]K ೕಡ ೇ 2013 ೇ
%ಾ ಂದ ?4ರು^ಾ>1ೆ.

ನಂತರ EFಾ ಓ%ಾJG ರವರು :ಾಲು ಾ =ೆ ಪತ9ದ ಯಮಗಳ Eರುದe6ಾK ನನ ೆ
Qೆ...ಾ†K ಹಣವನು] ೕಡ!ೇ=ೆಂದು 7 ಾ ಂL ಾ7 ಕಂಪ ಯ :ಾಲು ಾ =ೆwಂದ Qೊರ
Qೋಗುವl ಾK Qೇಳಲು :ಾ9ರಂc4ದರು.
:ಾ9ರಂc4ದರು ಆಗ ಇವರ ೊ^ೆ ೆ Cೕಹ, ೕi Qಾಗೂ
ಮಂಜು ಾg ಕುಲಕh ಸQಾ EFಾ ಓ%ಾJG ರವ1ೊಂ ೆ =ೈ ೋ74ರು^ಾ>1ೆ.ೆ ಇದ ಂದ
ಕಂಪ ಯ ವ ವQಾರಗಳm ಸOKತ ೊಂಡು ನನ ೆ ಆ‡ ಕ6ಾK Qಾಗೂ ಾನ4ಕ6ಾK ಅ:ಾರ
ಅ:ಾರ
ನಷ|ವನು] ಅನುಭEಸಲು =ಾರಣಕತ 1ಾKರು^ಾ>1ೆ.ೆ ಇದ ಂದ ಾವl ಕ9ಯ=ೆ ಪrೆ ರುವ
ಜ\ೕನುಗಳನು] 6ೇಶನಗಳ ಾ]K Eಂಗ74 ಾ1ಾಟ ಾಡಲು %ಾಧ 6ಾKರುವl ಲ?.
<ೕಲ ಂಡ :ಾಲು ಾರರುಗಳm ಾನು ಪ. ಾU ೆ %ೇ ದವ ೆಂದು USದು.
USದು ಾನು ಆ‡ ಕ6ಾK
ಸದೃಢ ಾಗ!ಾರ ೆಂದು Qಾಗೂ ನನ ೆ ಆ‡ ಕ6ಾK %ಾಕಷು| ನಷ|ವlಂಟು ಾಡುವ
ದುರು ೆPೕಶ ಂದ ಸು ಾರು 10 ವಷ ಗSಂದ ಸದ ವ ವQಾರದ ? qಾವl ೇ ಸಹ=ಾರವನು]
=ೊಡ ೇ ನನ ೆ ಅ:ಾರ ನಷ|ವನು]ಂಟು ಾ7ರು^ಾ>1ೆ.ೆ

ನಂತರ ನನ ೆ USwತು EFಾ ಓ%ಾJG ಮತು> Cೕಹ, ೕi Qಾಗೂ
ಮಂಜು ಾg ಕುಲಕh ರವರುಗಳm ಾನು ಒಬ„ ದ ತ ೆಂಬ =ಾರಣ ಂದ ನನ]
:ಾಲು ಾ =ೆwಂದ Qೊರ Qೋಗಲು ಪ9ಯU]4ರು^ಾ>1ೆ.ೆ ಆದ1ೆ EFಾ ಓ%ಾJG ರವರು :ಾ9 ೆ@|
ೆ QಾVರುವ ಒಟು| ಹಣ 1,90,00,000-00 ಹಣವನು] ಾತ9 ಹೂ7ದುP, ಇದ=ೆ ಪ9UqಾK ಈಗ
15

ತನ ೆ ರೂ 7,86,97,000-00 ರೂಗಳನು] ೕಡ!ೇ=ೆಂದು ನನ ೆ ಒ^ಾ>ಯ ಾ7 ನನ] ಾUಯನು]
ಉ ೆPೕ84 ಅ6ಾಚ ಶಬPಗSಂದ ಾತ
ಾತ ಾ7ರು^ಾ>1ೆ.ೆ ನಂತರ ನನ ೆ ಇ‰ೆ|ೕ ಹಣ =ೊಡ!ೇ=ೆಂದು
ಾಂಕ:24/12/2020
ಾಂಕ ರಂದು <ೕG ಾ7ರು^ಾ>1ೆ.ೆ

ನಂತರ ಾಂಕ:23/12/2020
ಾಂಕ ರಂದು !ೆS ೆY 11.00 ಗಂjೆ ಸಮಯದ ?
ಜಯನಗರದ ರ
? ುವ JA.E.J¸ï UËæAL ಬS %ಾವ ಜ ಕರು ಓrಾಡುವ ಸOಳದ ? EFಾ ಒ%ಾJG
ರವರು ನನ]ನು] ಕ1ೆದು eÁw¤AzÀ£É ಾ7,
ಾ7 ^ಾನು :ಾಲು ಾ =ೆwಂದ Qೊರ ಬರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ.ೆ ಈ ಬ ೆY
ನನ]ನು] qಾವl ೇ =ಾರಣ =ೇಳ!ೇಡ =ೇS ನ] ಾU ಬು P ^ೋ ಸ!ೇಡ ಎಂದು ಅ6ಾಚ
ಶಬPಗSಂದ !ೈದು ನನ ೆ ರೂ 7,86,97,000=00 ರೂಗಳನು] ೕನು =ೊಡ!ೇಕು.
=ೊಡ!ೇಕು ಅದೂ ಅಲ? ೇ 6
Uಂಗಳ ಒಳ ಾK =ೊಡು ಇFಾ? ಅಂ ೆ9 ನ] ಸುಮ~ ೆ +ಡಲ? ಎಂದು :ಾ9ಣ !ೆದ =ೆ QಾVರು^ಾ>1ೆ.ೆ
ಒಂದು 6ೇZೆ =ೊಡ ದP1ೇ <ೕಲ ಂಡ ಜ\ೕ ನ ಎFಾ? ಜ\ೕನುಗಳನು] ^ಾ ೇ %ಾJ ೕನ=ೆ
^ೆ ೆದು=ೊಳmz^ೇ ೆಂದು !ೆದ 4 ನನ ೆ ಾನ4ಕ Wಂ%ೆ ೕಡುU>ರು^ಾ>1ೆ.ೆ EFಾ ಓ%ಾ G
ಮತು> ಾವlಗಳm ಾ7ರುವ ವ ವQಾರಗಳ ಬ ೆY ಸಂಬಂ 4ದಂ^ೆ ಎFಾ? ಾಖFಾUಗಳm ನನ] ಬS
ಇರುತ> ೆ.ೆ E...ಾರŠೆ ಸಮಯದ ? Qಾಜಪ
Qಾಜಪ 74ರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ.ೆ Qಾಗೂ <ೕಲ ಂಡ ಜ\ೕನುಗಳ
ಅcವೃ e ಾK ಾ ೇ ಎFಾ? =ೆಲಸ =ಾಯ ಗಳನು] ಾ7ದುP ನನ ೆ ಕ1ಾ ನ ಯಮಗಳ ೕ^ಾ
ಬರ!ೇ=ಾKರುವ Fಾಭದ ಹಣ 10%ರಷು|
ರಷು| ಹಣವನು] ಸQಾ ೕಡ ೇ ನನ]ನು] ಮುKಸಲು
ೋಡುU>ರು^ಾ>1ೆ.ೆ Qಾಗೂ <ೕಲ ಂಡ ಜ\ೕನುಗS ೆ ಸಂಬಂ 4ದ ಎFಾ? ಮೂಲ ಾಖFಾUಗಳm
ಸQಾ ನನ] ಬS ಇರುತ> ೆ.ೆ

ಆದP ಂದ 89ೕ.EFಾ
89ೕ EFಾ ಓ%ಾJG ರವರನು] ಕ1ೆದು ಅವರು ಕಂಪ ೆ QಾVರುವ
:ಾಲು ಾ =ೆ ಹಣ ರೂ.1,90,00,000-00
ರೂ ಗಳm ಾತ9 ಇದುP. :ಾಲು ಾ =ೆ ಪತ9ದ
ಬಂಧ ೆಗS ೆ ಒಳಪಟು| ಆ ಹಣವನು] 6ಾಪಸು‹ ೕಡಲು ಾನು 4ದP ರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ ಆದ1ೆ
:ಾಲು ಾ =ೆಯ ? :ಾFೊYಂಡು ಕkೇ ಯ ವ ವQಾರಗS ೆ ಹಣವನು] ಹೂಡ ೇ ನನ ೆ ಅ:ಾರ
ನಷ|ವನು]ಂಟು ಾ7,
ಾ7 ನನ ೆ ಾಂಕ:23/12/2020
ಾಂಕ ರಂದು !ೆS ೆY 11.00 ಗಂjೆ ಸಮಯದ ?
ಜಯನಗರದ ರ
? ುವ ಎಂ.ಇ
ಎಂ ಇ.ಎ
ಎ . ೌಂL ಬS,
ಬS 36 ೇ =ಾ9 . 9 ೇ ಎ <ೖ,.
<ೖ, 5 ೇ !ಾ?@,
!ೆಂಗಳ#ರು %ಾವ ಜ ಕರು ಓrಾಡುವ ಸOಳದ ? ನನ ೆ ಅ6ಾಚ ಶಬPಗSಂದ !ೈದು,
!ೈದು ಾU ಂದ ೆ
ಾ7,
ಾ7 :ಾ9ಣ !ೆದ =ೆ QಾVದುP, ಈ ಕು ತು :ಾಲು ಾರರ ೊ^ೆಯ ? ಚ{ 4 ಾಗ ಸಂ•ಾನ
ಾ7 E6ಾದವನು] ಬ ೆಹ ^ೆ>ೕ6ೆ ಎಂದು QೇSದುP, ಆದ1ೆ ಅಂ ಂದ ಇದುವ1ೆEಗೂ qಾವl ೇ
ೕUಯ 1ಾH ಸಂ•ಾನ ಾಡ ೇ ದುರು ೆPೕಶಪBವ ಕ6ಾK =ಾಲಹರಣ ಾ7ರು^ಾ>1ೆ.ೆ ಆದP ಂದ
ಸದ ಯವರ EರುದP =ಾನೂನು ಕ9ಮ ಜರುK4 ಾ ಯ ೊರV4=ೊಡ!ೇ=ೆಂದು =ೋರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ.ೆ

ಎದುರು ಾರರ EZಾಸ:
EZಾಸ 89ೕ.EFಾ ಬುರುಮG Hೕ ಓ%ಾJG
ನಂ.27,1ೈFೆJೕ Fೈ,, =ೋ@ Nಾ? ಾ
16

%ೋFಾಪl* 413001
ªÉÆ.£ÀA.9422380169
ತಮ~ E•ೇಯ
¸À»/-
(ಆ*. %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* )."

(Emphasis added)

For about three paragraphs, the narration is that, there is dispute

between the partners in the partnership. The incident, that is the

fulcrum of the lis, happens on 23-12-2020, which is narrated in the

last two paragraphs. All that the narration in the complaint is that,

the petitioner has hurled one particular abuse / the sole utterance

is, 'do not reveal your casteist mindset'. Except this, there is

no casteist slur alleged by the complainant himself before the

DCRE. Other abuses are hurled but not casteist. This complaint

which narrates an incident of 23-12-2020 is registered after a

hiatus of 118 days. A perusal at the complaint nowhere indicates a

plausible explanation for the delay of 118 days in approaching the

DCRE.

13. The DCRE does not immediately act. For the first time,

after close to 3 years, the DCRE responds to the query of the

complainant and begins to record the statement of witnesses. The
17

statement of the petitioner is recorded on 12-02-2024. The

statements of eyewitnesses is recorded on 11-03-2024 and

13.03.2024, respectively. It is germane to notice the statements of

both the eyewitnesses. One C. Mahesh renders his statement on

11.03.2024, which reads as follows:

"-:QೇS=ೆ:-
89ೕ ಮQೇŽ.4 +, Fೇ; {ಕ ಚನ]ಪv, 48 ವಷ , ಯG ಎ%ೆ|ೕ; 6ಾ :ಾರ,
ಒಕ ಗರು, 6ಾಸ#205, 9 ೇ =ಾ9 , 4. ೆ.6ೆಂಕjೇ±ïzÁ 1ೋL, ಪದ~ ಾಭ ನಗರ,
!ೆಂಗಳ#ರು-560070. ೕ, ನಂಬ* 9620523027.
***
ಾಂಕ::-11.03.2024

ಾನು <ೕಲ ಂಡ EZಾಸದ ? ಸು ಾರು 6 UಂಗS ಂದ 6ಾಸ6ಾKರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ. ಈಗ ೕವl
^ೋ 4ದ ಅH ಯ E...ಾರವನು] ಓ USದು=ೊಂ7ರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ. ಈ ಅH ಯನು]
89ೕ %ೋಮ(ೇಖ*.ಆ* +, Fೇ; ಬಸಣ0 ರವರು EFಾ ಬುರುಮG H ಓ%ಾJG ರವರ Eರುದe
ೕ7 ಾPKರುತ> ೆ.

ನನ ೆ 89ೕ %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ರವರು ಸು ಾರು 5 ವಷ ಗSಂದ ಪ {ತ1ಾKರು^ಾ>1ೆ.
ನನ ೆ ಾಂಕ:23.12.2020 ರಂದು !ೆS ೆY ಸು ಾರು 10.30 ಗಂjೆ ಸು ಾ ನ ? 6ೈಯV>ಕ
=ೆಲಸE PದP ಂದ ಜಯನಗರದ ?ರುವ ಎಂ.ಇ.ಎ ಾ9ಂL ಬS QೋKರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ. ಆಗ
ಅH ಾರ1ಾದ %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ರವರು ಮತು> ಅವರ ೊ^ೆ 2-3 ಜನರು ಂತು=ೊಂಡು
ಾತ ಾಡುU>ದPರು. ನನ ೆ %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ರವರು ಪ ಚಯE PದP ಂದ ಅವರನು]
ಾತ ಾ7ಸಲು ಅವರ ಬS Qೋ ೆನು. ಆಗ ಅ ? ಂUದP ಒಬ„ ವ V> %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ರವರನು]
ಉ ೆPೕ84 "Vೕಳm
Vೕಳm ಾUಯವ ೇ,
ೇ ನನ]ನು] qಾವl ೇ =ಾರಣ =ೇಳ!ೇಡ,
=ೇಳ!ೇಡ ನ] ಾU ಬು P
^ೋ ಸ!ೇಡ ಾನು :ಾಲು ಾ =ೆwಂದ Qೊರಬರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ.ೆ ಎಂದು ಾUಯ Qೆಸ 7ದು
%ಾವ ಜ ಕರು ಓrಾಡುವ ಸOಳದ ? !ಾw ೆ ಬಂದಂ^ೆ !ೈಯು U>ದರ
P ು.
ು ಾನು ಆ ವ V> ೆ ೕವl ಈ
ೕU ಾU ಂದ ೆ ಾಡ!ೇ7 ಎಂದು ಬು P Qೇಳಲು ಪ9ಯU]4ದರು.
ಪ9ಯU]4ದರು ಆ ವ V> %ೋಮ(ೇಖ*
ರವ ೆ ಾU Qೆಸ 7ದು ಅ6ಾಚ ಶಬPಗSಂದ !ೈಯು U>ದುP, ನ]ನು] =ೊFೆ ಾಡ ೆ
+ಡುವl ಲ?6ೆಂದು =ೊFೆ !ೆದ =ೆ QಾಕುU>ದರ
P ು.
ು ಾನು %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ರವರನು] !ೈಯು U>ರುವ
ವ V> qಾರು ಎಂದು =ೇS ಾಗ %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ರವರು ಇವರ Qೆಸರು EFಾ ಓ%ಾJG ಎಂದು
18

QೇSರು^ಾ>1ೆ.ೆ ಾನು EFಾ ಓ%ಾJG ರವರನು] ೋ7ರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ.ೆ ಪlನಃ ೋ7ದ1ೆ
ಗುರುUಸು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ.ೆ ಾನು ಈ ಕೃತ ವನು] ಪ9ತ 6ಾK ೋ7ರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ.ೆ

ಓ.Qೇ.=ೆ.ಸ w ೆ.
¸À»/-"

(Emphasis added)
The statement is that, he incidentally was in the ground on

23.12.2020 and he knows the complainant for five years and has

heard hurling of abuses by the petitioner. The next witness is one

Kanakachala, who is said to be knowing the complainant for 40

years. His entry into the ground is the same as the other

eyewitness. His statement is recorded on 13.03.2024, which reads

as follows:

"-:QೇS=ೆ
QೇS=ೆ:-
QೇS=ೆ
89ೕ ಕನ=ಾಚಲ +, ಪಂಪಣ0, 53 ವಷ , {ತ9ಕFಾEದ, ಪ 8ಷ| ಪಂಗಡ '6ಾ 'V'
ಜ ಾಂಗ, 6ಾಸ ನಂ 248, 89ೕರಂಗ ಲಯ, ಕು6ೆಂಪl 1ೋL, pೋE =ಾFೋ , ಾಗ(ೆs|ಹSz,
!ೆಂಗಳ#ರು-94. ¥sÉÆÃ£ï £ÀA§gï 9066316823.

***
ಾಂಕ:-13.03.2024

ಾನು <ೕಲ ಂಡ EZಾಸದ ? ಸು ಾರು 10 ವಷ ಗSಂದ 6ಾಸ6ಾKರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ. ಈಗ
ೕವl ^ೋ 4ದ ಅH ಯ E...ಾರವನು] ಓ USದು=ೊಂ7ರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ. ಈ ಅH ಯನು] 89ೕ
%ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ಆ* +, Fೇ; ಬಸಣ0 ರವರು EFಾ ಬುರುಮG H ಓ%ಾJG ರವರ Eರುದe
ೕ7ರುವ ದೂರು ಅH qಾKರುತ> ೆ. ಸದ ಅH ಯ ಬ ೆY ನನ] QೇS=ೆ ಏ ೆಂದ1ೆ,
19

ನನ ೆ 89ೕ %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ರವರು ಸು ಾರು 40 ವಷ ಗSಂದ ಪ {ತ1ಾKರು^ಾ>1ೆ.
ನನ ೆ ಾಂಕ:23.12.2020 ರಂದು !ೆS ೆY ಸು ಾರು 09.30 ಗಂjೆ ಸು ಾ ನ ? 6ೈಯV>ಕ
=ೆಲಸE PದP ಂದ ಜಯನಗರದ ?ರುವ ಾqಾ' QೋjೆG ಹU>ರ QೋKರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ. ಅ ?
ಅH ಾರ1ಾದ Qಾಗೂ ನನ] %ೆ]ೕWತ1ಾದ 89ೕ %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* 4V ದರು. ಇಬ„ರೂ ಕುಶFೋಪ
ಾತ ಾಡುU> ೆPೕವl. ಸು ಾರು 10.30 ಗಂjೆ ಸಮಯದ ? %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ರವರು ಒಂದು ಸpೆ
ಇರುವl ಾK QೇS ಾತ ಾ7=ೊಂಡು ನನ]ನು] ಎಂ.ಇ.ಎ ೌಂL ಬS ಕ1ೆದು=ೊಂಡು
Qೋದರು. ಾವl ಸದ ಸOಳ=ೆ Qೋ ಾಗ %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ರವರ ಯG ಎ%ೆ|ೕ; :ಾ9 ೆ@|
:ಾಲು ಾರ1ಾದ 89ೕ EFಾ ಬುರುಮG H ಓ%ಾJG ರವರು ಆ ಸOಳದ ? ಇದPರು. %ೋಮ(ೇಖ*
ರವರು 89ೕ EFಾ ಬುರುಮG H ಓ%ಾJG ರವರ ಬS ಯG ಎ%ೆ|ೕ; ವ ವQಾರದ ಬ ೆY
ಾತ ಾಡು^ಾ> ಂUದPರು. ಾನು ಪಕ ದ ?"ೕ ಂU ೆPೕನು.
ನು ಆ ಸಮಯದ ? %ೋಮ(ೇಖ*
ರವ ೆ ಪ ಚಯEದP ಮQೇŽ ರವರು %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ರವರನು] ಾತ ಾ7ಸಲು ಹU>ರ ಬಂದರು.
ಬಂದರು
ಈ ಸಮಯದ ? EFಾ ಬುರುಮG H ಓ%ಾJG Qಾಗೂ %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ರವರ ನಡು6ೆ
ವ ವQಾ ಕ6ಾK ಾUನ ಚಕಮV ನrೆದು EFಾ ಬುರುಮG H ಓ%ಾJG ರವರು
%ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ರವರನು] ಉ ೆPೕ84 " ೕನು QೊFೆಯ ಾU ೆ %ೇ ದವನು ನನ]ನು] qಾವl ೇ
=ಾರಣ =ೇಳ!ೇಡ,
=ೇಳ!ೇಡ ನ] ಾU ಬು P ^ೋ ಸ!ೇಡ ಾನು :ಾಲು ಾ =ೆwಂದ Qೊರಬರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ.ೆ
ಎಂದು ಾUಯ Qೆಸ 7ದು %ಾವ ಜ ಕರು ಓrಾಡುವ ಸOಳದ ? !ಾw ೆ ಬಂದಂ^ೆ ಅ6ಾಚ
ಶಬPಗSಂದ !ೈಯುP Hೕವ !ೆದ =ೆ QಾVದರು."
QಾVದರು ಆಗ ಾನು ಮತು> ಮQೇŽ ರವರು ಓ%ಾJG ರವ ೆ
ೕವl ಈ ೕU ಾU ಂದ ೆ ಾಡ!ೇ7 ಎಂದು ಬು P Qೇಳಲು ಪ9ಯU]4 ೇವl.
ೇವl ಆದರೂ ಓ%ಾJG
ರವರು %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ರವ ೆ !ೈಯುU>
!ೈಯುU>ದರ
P ು Qಾಗೂ ಹFೆ? ೆ ಯU]4ದರು.
ಯU]4ದರು ಆಗ ಾವl +7ಸಲು
ಪ9ಯU]4 ೇವl.
ೇವl ಾನು ಈ ಕೃತ ವನು] ಪ9ತ 6ಾK ೋ7ರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ.ೆ ಾನು QೇSರುವl ೆFಾ?
ಸತ 6ಾKರುತ> ೆ.ೆ

ಓ Qೇ, =ೇ ಸ w ೆ.
¸À»/-"

(Emphasis added)

On the statements of these two eyewitnesses, before the DCRE, an

endorsement is issued on 06-04-2024, directing registration of

crime before the jurisdictional Police.
20

"ರವ ೆ,
ಉಪ ೕ ಆಯುಕ>ರು,
ದyಣ Epಾಗ,
!ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ನಗರ,
!ೆಂಗಳ#ರು.

ಾನ 1ೆ,

Eಷಯ: ಅH ಾರ1ಾದ 89ೕ %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ಆ* ರವ ೆ ಾU ಂದ ೆ
ಾ7ರುವ 89ೕ EFಾ §ÆgÀä°Ó ಓ%ಾJG ರವರ Eರುದe ಎ4‹/ಎ4|
ೌಜ ನ ತrೆ =ಾ"P ೕ^ಾ ಪ9ಕರಣ ಾಖ ಸುವ ಕು ತು.
ಉFೆ?ೕಖ :1] ಅH ಾರರ ದೂರು ಅH ಾಂಕ 20.04.2021
2] ೕ ಅ ೕ ಕರು, 74ಆ*ಇ., !ೆಂಗಳ#ರು :ಾ9 ೇ8ಕ ರವರ
E...ಾರŠಾ ವರ ಸಂ•ೆ ಅH /26/ ೇರ/r¹DgïE/©.Dgï/2021
¢£ÁAPÀ: 14.03.2024.
****

<ೕಲ ಂಡ Eಷಯ=ೆ ಸಂಬಂ 4ದಂ^ೆ ಅH ಾರ1ಾದ 89ೕ %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ಆ* ಮತು>
ಎದುರು ಾರ1ಾದ 89ೕ EFಾ ಬೂgÀä°Ó ಓ%ಾJG ರವರು K9ೕ,Fಾ ಂL ಇ,Nಾ9 :ಾಲು ಾ =ೆ
ಸಂ%ೆOಯ ? :ಾಲು ಾರ1ಾKದುP, ಎದುರು ಾರರು :ಾಲು ಾ =ೆಯ ? ಹೂ7ರುವ ಹಣವನು]
WಂUರುKಸುವಂ^ೆ ಅH ಾರ ೆ =ೇS. ಆ ಬ ೆY ಾತ ಾಡಲು ಾಂಕ 23.12.2020 ರಂದು
!ೆS ೆY 11:00 ಗಂjೆ ೆ ಜಯನಗರದ ?ರುವ ಎಂ.ಇ.ಎ . ೌಂL ಬS ಬರಲು US4, pೇsqಾK
ಾತ ಾಡುವ ಸಂದಭ ದ ? ಎದುರು ಾರರು ಅH ಾರರನು] ಕು ತು ಏ=ಾಏV %ಾವ ಜ ಕ
ಸOಳದ ? ಾU ಂದ ೆ ಾ7, ಅ6ಾಚ ಶಬPಗSಂದ !ೈಯುP, =ೊFೆ ಾಡು^ೆ>ೕ ೆಂದು :ಾ9ಣ
!ೆದ =ೆ ºÁQgÀÄvÁÛgÉAzÀÄ G¯ÉèÃR-1 jÃvÀå zÀÆgÀÄ CfðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß r.¹.Dgï.E., WÀlPÀPÉÌ
¸À°è¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

CfðAiÀÄ°è ಆ1ೋu4ರುವ ಅಂಶಗಳ ಬ ೆY ಎ .u.. 7.4.ಆ*.ಇ.. !ೆಂಗಳ#ರು
:ಾ9 ೇ8ಕ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è ¥ÁæxÀ«ÄPÀ «ZÁgÀuÉ PÉÊUÉÆAqÀÄ ಉFೆ?ೕಖ 2 ರ ೕತ E...ಾರŠಾ
ವರ ಯನು] ಸ ?4ದುP, ಅH ಾರ1ಾದ ²æÃ ¸ÉÆÃಮ(ೇಖ* ರವರನು] ಎದುರು ಾರ1ಾದ 89ೕ
EFಾ ಬೂgÀä°Ó ಓ%ಾJG ರವರು %ಾವ ಜ ಕ ಸOಳದ ? ಾU ¤Aದ ೆ ಾ7ರುವlದು %ಾy ಾರರ
QೇS=ೆಗSಂದ <ೕFೊ]ೕಟ=ೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂ ರುವ =ಾರಣ 89ೕ EFಾ ಬೂgÀä°Ó ಓ%ಾJG ರವರ Eರುದe
ಈ =ೆಳಕಂಡ ಯಮಗಳ7 =ಾನೂನು ಕ9ಮ ಜರುKಸಲು =ೋ ೆ.
21

1. ಅನುಸೂ{ತ ಾUಗಳm ಮತು> ಅನುಸೂ{ತ ಬುಡಕಟು|ಗಳ( ೌಜ ನ ಪ9Uಬಂಧ)
ಯಮಗಳm-1995 ಯಮ 5(3) ರ ? ಾWUಯನು] ಾಖಲು ಾಡಲು ೕ
-ಾŠೆಯ ಪ9pಾರದ ? ಅ =ಾ ಯು 1ಾಕ 4ದP ಂ ಾK !ಾ ತ ಾದ qಾ1ೇ
ವ V>ಯು ಅಂತಹ ಾWUಯ %ಾ1ಾಂಶವನು] --ತದ ? ಮತು> ಅಂ...ೆ ಮೂಲಕ
ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ| ೕ ಅ ೕ ಕ ೆ ಕಳmWಸಬಹುದು, ಆ ೕ ಅ ೕ ಕರು
^ಾ6ೇ ಸJತಃ ಅಥ6ಾ 76ೈಎ u ದ ೆ Kಂತ ಕ7< ಇಲ?ದ ಒಬ„ ೕ
ಅ =ಾ ಯು ತ •ೆ ಾ7ದ ನಂತರ ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ| ೕ -ಾŠೆಯ
ಪ9pಾರದ ?ರುವ ಅ =ಾ ೆ ಈ ಾWUಯ %ಾ1ಾಂಶವನು] ಆ ೕ
-ಾŠೆಯ ?s|ರುವ ಪlಸ>ಕದ ? ನಮೂ ಸುವಂ^ೆ --ತ ಆ ೇಶ ೕಡತಕ ದುP ಎಂದು
ಉFೆ?ೕ--4ರುತ> ೆ.

2. ಪ 8ಷ| ಾU ಮತು> ಪ 8ಷ| ಪಂಗಡಗಳ ೌಜ ನ ತrೆ =ಾ"P ಕಲಂ 4 ರ ?
qಾ1ಾದರೂ, Fೋಕ ೌಕರ ಾKದುP, ಆದ1ೆ ಅನುಸೂ{ತ ಾU ಅಥ6ಾ
ಅನುಸೂ{ತ ಬುಡಕs|ನ ಸದಸ ಾKಲ?ದ ಈ ಅ ಯಮದ ಮತು> ಅದರ <ೕ1ೆ ೆ
ಾಡFಾದ ಯಮಗಳ <ೕ1ೆ ೆ ಅವ ಂದ ೆರ6ೇ ಸ!ೇ=ೆಂದು ಅಗತ ಪ7ಸFಾದ
ಅವನ ಕತ ವ ಗಳನು] ಉ ೆPೕಶಪBವ ಕ6ಾK ಲ y4ದ1ೆ ಆರು UಂಗSKಂತ
ಕ7<wಲ?ತಕ ಅವ ಾK ಆದ1ೆ ಒಂದು ವಷ ದವ1ೆ ೆ Eಸ> ಸಬಹು ಾದ
=ಾ1ಾ6ಾಸ ಂದ ದಂ7ತ ಾಗತಕ ದುP ಎಂದು ಉFೆ?ೕ--4ರುತ> ೆ.

3. SC/ST (POA) Act PÀ®A 18(J) gÀr ¨Á¢üvÀgÀÄ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ PÉÆqÀ¯ÉÃ
-ಾŠಾ =ಾ ಗಳm :ಾ9ಥ\ಕ ತ •ೆಯ ಅವಶ ಕ^ೆ ಇಲ? ೆ, ತ ಣ ದೂರನು] 4Jೕಕ 4
ಪ9ಥಮ ವತ ಾನ ವರ ಯನು] ಾಖ ಸ!ೇ=ೆಂದು ಉFೆ?ೕ--4ರುತ> ೆ.

ಆದುದ ಂದ ಉFೆ?ೕ--ತ ಅH Qಾಗೂ E...ಾರŠಾ ವರ ಯನು] ಇದ1ೊಂ ೆ ಲಗU>4 ಕಳmW4
=ೊಡFಾKದುP, ಎದುರು ಾರ1ಾದ 89ೕ EFಾ ಬೂgÀä°Ó ಓ%ಾJG ರವರು ಅH ಾರ1ಾದ 89ೕ
%ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ಆ* ಇವ ೆ %ಾವ ಜ ಕ ಸOಳದ ? %ಾy ಾರರ ಸಮು~ಖದ ? ಾU ಂದ ೆ
ಾ7ರುವlದು <ೕFೊ]ೕಟ=ೆ %ಾ+ೕ^ಾKರುವ =ಾರಣ ಎದುರು ಾರರ Eರುದe ಕಲಂ 3(1)(ಆ*
ಆ*),
ಆ*
ಎ ) Qಾಗೂ 3(2)(Eಎ
3(1)(ಎ Eಎ)
Eಎ ಅನುಸೂ{ತ ಾU/ಅನುಸೂ{ತ
ಾU ಅನುಸೂ{ತ ಪಂಗಡಗಳ ೌಜ ನ ತrೆ
=ಾ"P 1989 ೕ^ಾ ಪ9ಕರಣ ಾಖ ಸುವಂ^ೆ =ೋರು^ಾ>, =ೈ ೊಂಡ ಕ9ಮದ ಬ ೆY ಈ ಕkೇ ೆ
05 ನ ೊಳ ಾK ಾWUಯನು] ಸ ಸ
? ುವಂ^ೆ =ೋರFಾK ೆ.ೆ
ತಮ~ E(ಾJ4,

¸À»/-
(«.zsÀ£ÀAdAiÀÄ)
22

ೕ ಅ ೕ ಕರು, =ೇಂದ9%ಾOನ,
ಾಗ ೕಕ ಹಕು ಾ ೇ ಶ ಾಲಯ,
!ೆಂಗಳ#ರು."
(Emphasis added)

It is then on 06-04-2024, the crime comes to be registered. The

Police after investigation file a charge sheet against the petitioner.

The summary of the charge sheet, as obtaining in column No.17,

reads as follows:

"17. =ೇ4ನ ಸಂyಪ> %ಾ1ಾಂಶ

ಈ ೋ‰ಾ1ೋಪŠಾ ಪs|ಯ ?ರುವ %ಾy-1 ರವರು 2010 ೇ %ಾ ನ ? 7%ೆಂಬ* ನ ?
%ಾy-4 %ಾy-5 ರವ1ೊಂ ೆ %ೇ =ೊಂಡು . K9ೕ, Fಾ ಂL ಇ£Ááç Qೆಸ ನ ? :ಾಲು ಾ =ೆ
ಒಡಂಬ7=ೆ ಾ7=ೊಂಡು ಸದ ಸಂ%ೆOಯನು] ಾಂಕ 28/01/2011 ರಂದು ೊಂದh
ಾ7ರು^ಾ>1ೆ. ಾಂಕ 08/08/2011 ರಂದು %ಾy-1, %ಾy-4, %ಾy-5 ರವರುಗಳm
:ಾಲು ಾರ1ಾKರುವ K9ೕ, Fಾ ಂL ಇ£Ááç ಸಂ%ೆO ೆ ಎ1 ಮತು> ಆತನ ಪU]qಾದ ಲ ^ಾ
Qಾಗೂ %ಾy-6 ರವರನು] :ಾಲು ಾ =ೆ ಸಂ%ೆO ೆ :ಾಲು ಾರ1ಾK %ೇಪ rೆ ಾ7=ೊಂ7ದುP
ಇದರ ? %ಾy-1 ರವರು ಾ ೇHಂn rೈ1ೆಕ|* ಆK Qಾಗೂ ಎ1 ಆ1ೋuಯನು] ಸಂ%ೆOಯ
ವ ವQಾರಗS ೆ ಾwಂ; %ೈ ಂn ಅ˜ಾ sಯ ಾ]K ಾ7=ೊಂಡು, ಸಂ%ೆOಯ ಅ7ಯ ?
1ೈತ ಂದ ಾಗಗಳನು] ಅK9<ಂ; ಾ7=ೊಂಡು ಅcವೃ eಪ7ಸುವ ಸಲು6ಾK
=ಾಯ ಪ9ವೃತ>1ಾKದುP, ಈ ಸಂದಭ ದ ? %ಾy-1 ಮತು> ಎ1 ಆ1ೋuಯ ನಡು6ೆ ಸಂ%ೆOಯ
ವ ವQಾರದ ? <ೖಮನಸು‹ ಉಂjಾK ಎ1 ಆ1ೋuಯು qಾವl ೇ ಸಂ%ೆOಯ ವ ವQಾರದ ?
ಸW ಾಡ ೇ ಇರುವ =ಾರಣ ಸಂ%ೆOಯ ಅ7ಯ ? qಾವl ೇ ಅcವೃ e =ಾಯ ಗಳನು]
=ೈ ೊಳzಲು %ಾಧ 6ಾಗ ೇ ಇದುP, ಈ ಸಂದಭ ದ ?, ಎ1 ಆ1ೋuಯು %ಾy-1
%ಾy ರವರನು]
ಾಂಕ 23/12/2020 ರಂದು !ೆS ೆY, ಸು ಾರು 11-00 ಗಂjೆಯ ? ಜಯನಗರ ೕ
-ಾŠಾ ಸಹರ¢Ýನ ಜಯನಗರ 5 ೇ !ಾ?@, 9 ೇ ಎ. ಮುಖ ರ%ೆ>, 36 ೇ =ಾ9 ರ%ೆ>ಯ
ಪlಟ:ಾತ ಬS ಾತುಕ^ೆ ೆ ಕ1ೆw4=ೊಂಡು ಾತುಕ^ೆಯ ಸಂದಭ ದ ? %ಾy-2
%ಾy ಮತು>
%ಾy3
%ಾy ರವರ ಸಮ ಮ %ಾವ ಜ ಕ ಸOಳದ ,? ಪ 8ಷ| ಾU ೆ %ೇ ದ %ಾy-1
%ಾy ರವರ
ಾUಯನು] ಉ ೆPೕ84,
84 Fೇ QೊFೆಯ ಾUಯವ ೇ ಮ~ ಾUಯ ಬು ಯ
e ನು] ^ೋ 4
+s|qಾ?
+s|qಾ ಮ~ ಾUಯ ಬು P"ೕ ಇಷು| ಎಂದು Qೇಳm^ಾ>, !ೋSಮಗ ೇ ಾನು
23

=ೇSದಷು| ಹಣವನು] ನನ ೆ =ೊಡು ಇಲ?6ಾದ1ೆ ೕನು ಇರಲ?, ನ] ' ಸಂ%ೆOಯು ಇರಲ? ಎಂದು
%ಾy-1
%ಾy ರವರನು] ಂ 4 :ಾ9ಣ !ೆದ =ೆ QಾVರುವlದು %ಾ™ಾ•ಾರಗSಂದ
ಕಂಡುಬಂ ರುತ> ೆ."
ೆ
(Emphasis added)

The charge sheet however presents a miraculously enriched

narrative - a classic instance of retrospective

embellishment. The transformation between the complaint,

statements and summary of the charge sheet is too

conspicuous to ignore, as the name of the caste comes here

for the first time. If the complainant was abused with the

name of the caste, nothing prevented him to narrate the

same in the complaint before the DCRE. Before the DCRE all

that the complainant alleges is hurling of an abuse, do not

display your casteist mindset. But, in the charge sheet the

improvement is seen.

14. The concerned Court in terms of its order dated 07-06-

2024 takes cognizance for the following offence:

"7.06.2024:

ACP, Jayanagara Sub-Division, Bengaluru City has filed
charge sheet in Cr.No.126 of 2024 of Jayanagar PS on 5-06-
2024 for the offences punishable under Sections 506, 504 of
24

IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Accused is on interim bail
For kind orders.
07-06-2024:

This charge sheet is submitted by the ACP, Yeshwanthapura
Sub-Division, Bengaluru City, against the accused for the
offences punishable under Sections 506, 504 of IPC and
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST
(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

I have perused the contents of charge sheet along with
enclosures. Prima facie case is made out for alleged offences
against the accused. Hence, cognizance for the offences
punishable under Sections 506, 504 of IPC and Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, 1989 is taken.

Issue summons to accused r/by 11-07-2024

Sd/-
(RAJESH KARNAM.K)
Lxx Addl. City Civil & Sessions
Judge & Special Judge, Bengaluru."

Taking of cognizance and issuance of summons leads the petitioner

at the doors of this Court.

15. The issue now is, whether further trial should be

permitted to be continued against the petitioner. It thus, becomes

necessary to notice the statement of the petitioner recorded before

the DCRE, it reads as follows:
25

"¢£ÁAPÀ:12.02.2024
-:QೇS=ೆ
QೇS=ೆ:-
QೇS=ೆ

89ೕ EFಾ ಬುgÀä°Ó ಓ%ಾJG +, ಬುgÀä°Ó ಓ%ಾJG, 58 ವಷ , ೈನ ಜ ಾಂಗ,
6ಾ :ಾರ ವೃU>, #27, 1ೈFೆJ Fೈ,, %ೊFಾ?ಪlರ, ಮQಾ1ಾಷš 1ಾಜ -582102 ೕ, ನಂಬ*
9422380169.

***
ಾನು <ೕಲ ಂಡ EZಾಸದ ? ಸು ಾರು 25 ವಷ ಗSಂದ ನನ] ಸಂ%ಾರ ೊಂ ೆ
6ಾಸ6ಾKರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ. ಈಗ ೕವl ^ೋ 4ದ ಅH ಯನು] ಓ USದು=ೊಂ7ರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ. ಸದ
ಅH ಯನು] 89ೕ %ೋಮ(ೇಖ*.ಆ* +, ಬಸಣ0, #201, 3 ೇ ಮಹ7, 89ೕ ಲಯ ಅ:ಾ;
<ಂ;, 93/5, 28 ೇ + =ಾ9 , 14 ೇ ಮುಖ ರ%ೆ>, 4 ೇ !ಾ?@ ಪBವ , ಜಯನಗರ,
!ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ರವರು ೕ7 ಾPKರು^ೆ>. ಈ ಅH ಯ E...ಾರ=ೆ ಸಂಬಂ 4ದಂ^ೆ ನನ] QೇS=ೆ
ಏ ೆಂದ1ೆ.

ಅH ಾರ1ಾದ 89ೕ %ೋಮ(ೇಖ*, 89ೕ ೕi ಕುಲಕh , 89ೕ ಮಂಜು ಾಥ
ಕುಲಕh ರವರು ಒjಾ|K %ೇ =ೊಂಡು ತFಾ 3500000/- (ಮೂವ^ೆ›ದು ಲ ರೂ) ಗಳನು]
ಹೂ7=ೆ ಾ7 K9ೕ, Fಾ ಂL ಇ,Nಾ9 ಎಂಬ rೆವಲuvಂn :ಾಲು ಾ =ೆ ಸಂ%ೆOಯನು] ^ೆ1ೆ ದುP,
ಈ ಸಂ%ೆOಯ ಅcವೃ e ೆ ಹಣ=ಾ4ನ =ೊರ^ೆ ಇದP =ಾರಣ 89ೕ Cೕಹ, 1ಾಮನ ೌಡ ಕಗ ಾಳ
ರವರನು] K9ೕ,Fಾ ಂL ಇ,Nಾ9 ಸಂ%ೆOಯ ? 3500000/- (ಮೂವ^ೆ›ದು ಲ ರೂ) ಹಣವನು]
ಹೂ7=ೆ ಾ74=ೊಂಡು :ಾಲು ಾರ1ಾK ಾ7=ೊಂ7ರು^ಾ>1ೆ. ಆನಂತರ ಸದ ಸಂ%ೆOಯ
ಅcವೃ e ೆ ಇನೂ] Qೆ{†ನ ಹಣದ ಅಗತ E PದP ಂದ Cೕಹ, ಕಗ ಾಳ ರವರ %ೆ]ೕWತ1ಾದ
+ ಾಪlರದ 6ಾ4 89ೕ ಬಬಲು uರ ಾ ೆ ರವ ೆ ಸದ ಸಂ%ೆOಯ ? ಹಣ ಹೂ7=ೆ ಾಡುವಂ^ೆ
=ೇS=ೊಂ7ರು^ಾ>1ೆ. ಆಗ ನನಗೂ ಕೂಡ %ೆ]ೕWತ1ಾKದP 89ೕ ಬಬಲು uರ ಾ ೆ ರವರ ಾUನಂ^ೆ
ಾನು ಮತು> ನನ] QೆಂಡU 89ೕಮU ಲ ^ಾ EFಾ ಓ%ಾJG ರವರನು] :ಾಲ ಾರ1ಾK
%ೇ 4=ೊಳzFಾwತು. ಇದರ ? ಾವl 1,40,00000/-(ಒಂದು =ೋs ನಲವತು> ಲ ರೂ ಾತ9)
ರೂ :ಾಲು ಾ =ೆ ಹಣ ಹೂ7=ೆ ಾ7ರು^ೆ>ೕ6ೆ. Qಾಗೂ 50,00000/-(ಐವತು> ಲ ರೂ)ಗಳನು]
ಕಂಪ ಯು ಅcವೃ e ಾK ೕ7ರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ. Qಾಗೂ 10 %ಾEರ ಚದುರ ಅ7 Nಾ?ಟನು] 500 ರೂ
ದರದಂ^ೆ ಒuv ೆಯ <ೕ1ೆ ೆ ಬುV ಂn Cತ> 50,00000/-(ಐವತು> ಲ ರೂ) ಾನು ಮತು> ನನ]
QೆಂಡU 89ೕಮU ಲ ^ಾ ಇಬ„ರ Qೆಸ ನ ? ಒಟು| 2,40,00000/-(ಎರಡು =ೋs ನಲವತು> ಲ )
ರೂಗಳನು] K9ೕನ Fಾ ಂL ಇ,Nಾ9 ಕಂಪ ೆ ೕ7ರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ.

ಆನಂತರ K9ೕ,Fಾ ಂL ಇ,Nಾ9 ಸಂ%ೆOಯ7ಯ ? !ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ದyಣ ^ಾಲೂ?Vನ
UÀÄ½PÀªÀÄ¯ÉÃ ಾ9ಮ, ಉತ>ರಹSz QೋಬSಯ ? ಹಲ6ಾರು ಸ6ೇ ನಂಬ*ಗಳ ? ಸು ಾರು 12
26

JPÀgÉ 33 ಗುಂjೆ ಜ\ೕ ನ ? 3 ಎಕ1ೆ 33 ಗುಂjೆ ಜ\ೕನನು] ಖ ೕ ಾ7ದುP, ಉSದ
d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ಾwಂ;6ೆಂಚ* ಮತು> Huಎ ನ ? 1ೈತ1ೊಂ ೆ ಕ1ಾರುಗಳನು] ಾ7=ೊಂಡು
ªÉÄÃ¯ÁÌtÂ¹zÀ ಎFಾ? ಜ\ೕನುಗಳನು] ಭೂಪ ವತ ೆ ಾ74ರು^ೆ>ೕ6ೆ.

89ೕ %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ರವರು ಸOSೕಯ 6ಾ4qಾKದP ಂದ ಅವರನು] K9ೕ, Fಾ ಂqï
ಇ,Nಾ9 ಸಂ%ೆOಯ ಾ ೇHಂn :ಾಟ ನ* ಆK Qಾಗೂ ನನ]ನು] ಸಂ%ೆOಯ ವ ವQಾರದ ?
eÁwಂ; %ೈ ಂn ಆ˜ಾ sಯ ಾ]K ಾಡFಾKತು>.

ಈKರು6ಾಗ 89ೕ %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ರವರು ತಮ~ %ೆ]ೕWತ ೆ :ಾಲು ಾರರುಗಳ ಗಮನ=ೆ
ತರ ೆ ...ೆ@ ೕ7ದPರು. ಆಗ ಾನು ಅದನು] ಪ98]4, " ೕವl :ಾಲು ಾ =ೆಯ ? ಈ ೕU ...ೆ@ಗಳನು]
ೕಡುವಂUಲ?, :ಾಲು ಾರರ ಗಮನ=ೆ ತಂದು ೕವl ವ ವQಾರ ಾ7" ಎಂದು QೇS ಾಗ
ನ\~ಬ„ ಗೂ ವ ವQಾ ಕ6ಾK c ಾ]c:ಾ9ಯಗಳm ಉಂjಾದವl. ಅ ?ಂದ ಮುಂದ=ೆ ಉಂjಾದ
ಹಣ=ಾ4ನ c ಾ]c:ಾ9ಯಗSಂದ ಸಂ%ೆOಯ ವUwಂದ qಾವl ೇ ವ ವQಾರಗಳm
ನrೆ ರುವl ಲ?.

ಈ E...ಾರ6ಾK 2015 ೇ %ಾ ನ ? + ಾಪlರದ ? :ಾಲು ಾರ1ಾದ ಾ6ೆಲ?ರೂ ಸpೆ
%ೇ ದುP, K9ೕ,Fಾ ಂL ಇ,Nಾ9 ಸಂ%ೆOಯ ? ವ ವQಾರದ ಬ ೆY ಾತುಕ^ೆ ನrೆ4ರು^ೆ>ೕ6ೆ. ಆದ1ೆ
qಾವl ೇ Uೕ ಾ ನ=ೆ ಬರಲು %ಾಧ 6ಾKರುವl ಲ?.

ಆ ಾದ ನಂತರ 2016 ರ ? ಹುಬ„Szಯ ?ರುವ ಸಕೂ ; Qೌ ನ ? :ಾಲು ಾರ1ಾದ
ಾ6ೆಲ?ರೂ ಸpೆ %ೇ K9ೕ,Fಾ ಂL ಇ,Nಾ9 ಸಂ%ೆOಯ ? ವ ವQಾರವನು] ಮುಂದುವ ಸುವ ಬ ೆY
ಾತುಕ^ೆ ನrೆ4ರು^ೆ>ೕ6ೆ. ಆದ1ೆ ಇ ?ಯೂ ಕೂಡ qಾವl ೇ Uೕ ಾ ನ=ೆ ಬಂ ರುವl ಲ?.

ಸದ K9ೕ, Fಾ ಂL ಇ,Nಾ9 ಸಂ%ೆOಯ :ಾಲು ಾರರ ? ಒಮ~ತEಲ?ದP ಂದ
ಅH ಾರ1ಾದ 89ೕ %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ಬಸಣ0 1ಾಮದುಗ ರವರು ಖ ಜ ಭವನ, 1ೇ =ೋ ರ%ೆ>
!ೆಂಗಳ# ನ ?ರುವ ಅ+ jೆ9ೕಷ, =ೊ; =ೇ ನಂಬ* ಎ.4.ನಂಬ* 368/2023 ರ ?
ಾ qಾಲಯ=ೆ QೋKರು^ಾ>1ೆ. ಆಗ ನಮ ೆ ಾ qಾಲಯ ಂದ E...ಾರŠೆ ೆ Qಾಜ1ಾಗುವಂ^ೆ
ೋs ಬಂ ದುP, ಾವl 3 !ಾ ಸದ ಾ qಾಲಯ=ೆ Qಾಜ1ಾKರು^ೆ>ೕ6ೆ ಆದ1ೆ ಅH ಾರರು
3 E...ಾರŠಾ ಾಂಕಗಳಂದು ಾ qಾಲಯ=ೆ Qಾಜ1ಾKರುವl ಲ?. ಅ+ jೆ9ೕಷ,
ಾ qಾಲಯದ ಮುಂ ೆ ಅH ಾರರು E...ಾರŠೆ ೆ Qಾಜ1ಾಗ ೆ ೈರುQಾಜ1ಾKರು^ಾ>1ೆ. ಆದ1ೆ
ಅH ಾರರು ತಮ~ ದೂರು ಅH ಯ ? :ಾಲು ಾರರುಗಳm ಾವl ಸಹ=ಾರ =ೊಡುU>ಲ?6ೆಂದು
ಸುಳmz ದೂರು ೕ7ರು^ಾ>1ೆ.
27

CH ಾರರು ತಮ~ ದೂರು ಅH ಯ ? US4ರುವಂ^ೆ ಾನು ಾಂಕ:-23.12.2020
gÀAzÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÉÎ 11.00 ಗಂjೆ ಸಮಯದ ? ಜಯನಗರದ ?ರುವ ಎಂ.ಇ.ಎ . UËæAL‹ ಬS
¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀgÀÄ ಓrಾಡುವ ಸOಳದ ? 89ೕ %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ರವ ೆ ನ] ಾU ಬು P ^ೋ ಸ!ೇಡ
JAzÀÄ CªÁಚ ಶಬPಗSಂದ ಾU ಂದ ೆ ಾ7, !ೈದು, :ಾ9ಣ !ೆದ =ೆ QಾV, ಾನ4ಕ Wಂ%ೆ
¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ ಎಂಬ %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ರವರ QೇS=ೆ ಸತ =ೆ ದೂರ6ಾKರುತ> ೆ.

ಏ=ೆಂದ1ೆ,
ಏ=ೆಂದ1ೆ ಾಂಕ:-23.12.2020
ಾಂಕ ರಂದು !ೆಳ ೆY 11.00 ಗಂjೆ ಸಮಯದ ?
ಜಯನಗರದ ರ
? ುವ ಎಂ.ಇ
ಎಂ ಇ.ಎ
ಎ . ೌಂL‹ ಹU>ರ ಾEಬ„ರೂ K9ೕ, Fಾ ಂL ಇ,Nಾ9
ಇ,Nಾ9 ಸಂ%ೆOಯ
ವ ವQಾ ಕ6ಾK pೇsqಾ ಾಗ ಅH ಾರ1ಾದ %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ರವರು "K9ೕ,
K9ೕ, Fಾ ಂL ಇ,
Nಾ9 ಸಂ%ೆOಯ7 =ೊಂ7ರುವ ಸು ಾರು 12 ಎಕ1ೆ 33 ಗುಂjೆ ಜ\ೕನನು] ಾ ೇ
ೋ7=ೊಳmz^ೆ>ೕ ೆ.ೆ ಮ~ ಮತು> ಮ~ QೆಂಡUಯ :ಾ ೆ ಬರುವ ಜ\ೕನನು] ನನ ೆ +ಟು|=ೊ7,
+ಟು|=ೊ7
ಮ ೆ ಎಷು| ಹಣ !ೇಕು =ೇS"
=ೇS ಎಂದು =ೇSದರು.
=ೇSದರು ಅದ=ೆ ಾನು ನನ ೆ Fಾ ಂL 7jೇG =ೊ7,
=ೊ7
ನಮ~ Fೆ=ಾ =ಾ ರವರ ಬS ಾತ ಾ7 ಮ ೆ USಸು^ೆ>ೕ ೆಂದು US4 ೆನು.
ೆನು ಆನಂತರ
ಾEಬ„ರು qಾವl ೇ ಅಸ ಾ•ಾನEಲ? ೆ ಸಂ^ೋಷ ಂದ ಾತ ಾ7=ೊಂಡು ಅ ಂ
? ದ Qೊರಟು
QೋKರು^ೆ>ೕ6ೆ.
6ೆ

ಅH ಾರ1ಾದ %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ರವರು ಾಂಕ:-24.12.2020
ಾಂಕ ರಂದು Fಾ ಂL
7jೇಲನು] ಇ-<ೕG
<ೕG ೆ ಕಳmW4ದರು.
ಕಳmW4ದರು ಅದನು] ಾನು ಪ 8ೕಲ ೆ ಾ7,
ಾ7 ಾನು %ೋಮ(ೇಖ*
ರವರ ಬS ೕ,ನ
ೕ,ನ ? ವ ವQಾರವನು] ಇಬ„ರೂ ಚ{ 4ರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ.ೆ ಆನಂತರ ಅವರು ನನ ೆ ಇಷು|
ಹಣವನು] ಮ ೆ =ೊಡು^ೆ>ೕ ೆಂದು ಇ-<ೕG
<ೕG ಮು•ಾಂತರ ಕಳmW4ದರು.
ಕಳmW4ದರು

ಾನು ಮ ತು> %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ರವರು ಾಂಕ:-25.12.2020
ಾಂಕ ರಂದು
ಜಯನಗರದ ರ
? ುವ ಎಂ.ಇ
ಎಂ ಇ.ಎ
ಎ . UËæAL‹ ಹU>ರ ವ ವQಾ ಕ6ಾK ಾತ ಾಡಲು
pೇsqಾK ೆPವl.l ಅH ಾರ1ಾದ %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ರವರು ನನ] ಬS " ೕವl Cದಲು ನನ]
Qೆಸ ೆ ಜ\ೕನನು] ಬ1ೆದು=ೊ7
ಬ1ೆದು=ೊ7 ಆ<ೕFೆ ಮ ೆ ಹಂತ ಹಂತ6ಾK ಹಣವನು] =ೊಡು^ೆ>ೕ ೆಂದು"
ೆಂದು"
US4ದರು.
US4ದರು ಆಗ ಾನು ಈ ವ ವQಾರ ನನ ೆ ಇಷ|Eಲ?6ೆಂದು US4 6ಾ:ಾ + ಾಪlರ=ೆ
QೋKರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ.ೆ

ಾನು ಮತು> ಅH ಾರ1ಾದ %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ರವರು ಅಣ0-ತಮ~ಂ ರಂ^ೆ ಇದುP,
ವ ವQಾ ಕ6ಾK ಾEಬ„ರೂ ಾತ ಾ7ರುವlದನು] +ಟ|1ೆ ಅವ ೆ ಅ6ಾಚ ಶಬPಗSಂದ
ಾU ಂದ ೆ ಾ7ರುವl ಲ?. ಮತು> ಹಣ=ೆ !ೇ7=ೆ ಇಟು| :ಾ9ಣ !ೆದ =ೆ QಾVರುವl ಲ?.
ವ ವQಾ ಕ6ಾK ಾನು ಅH ಾರ1ಾದ 89ೕ %ೋಮ(ೇಖ* ರವರ ಾತನು] ಾನು =ೇಳ ಲ?
ಎಂಬ =ಾರಣ=ೆ ನನ] Eರುದe ಾಂಕ:-23.12.2020 ರಂದು !ೆಳ ೆY 11.00 ಗಂjೆ ಸಮಯದ ?
28

ಜಯನಗರದ ?ರುವ ಎಂ.ಇ.ಎ . UËæAL‹ ಬS %ಾವ ಜ ಕರು ಓrಾಡುವ ಸOಳದ ? ಅ6ಾಚ
ಶಬPಗSಂದ ಾU ಂದ ೆ ಾ7, !ೈದು, :ಾ9ಣ !ೆದ =ೆ QಾV, ಾನ4ಕ Wಂ%ೆ
ೕ7ರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆಂದು ಸುಳmz ಆ1ೋಪ ಾ7 ಾಗ ೕಕ ಹಕು ಾ ೇ ಶ ಾಲಯ=ೆ ದೂರು
ೕ7ರು^ಾ>1ೆ.

ಓ ೋ7 ೆ ಸ w ೆ.
¸À»/-"
(Emphasis added)

In contrast, the statement of the complainant is also to be noticed.

It reads as follows:

"-:QೇS=ೆ
QೇS=ೆ:-
QೇS=ೆ
89ೕ %ೋಮ(ೇಖ*.ಆ* +, Fೇ; ಬಸಣ0, ವಯಸು‹-49 ವಷ , ಾU ಪ 8ಷ|
ಾUಯ "ಚಲ6ಾ " 6ಾಸ ನಂ. 201, 3 ೇ ಮಹ7, 89ೕ ಲಯ ಅ:ಾ; <ಂ;, 28 ೇ +
ಅಡ•ರ%ೆ>, 14 ೇ ಮುಖ ರ%ೆ>, 4 ೇ !ಾ?@, ಪBವ , ಜಯನಗರ, !ೆಂಗಳ#ರು-560011, C!ೈG
£ÀA-9980606060.
*****
¢£ÁAPÀ: 14.07.2021

ಾನು <ೕಲ ಂಡ EZಾಸದ ? ಸಂ%ಾರ ಸ<ೕತ 6ಾಸ6ಾKರು^ೆ>ೕ6ೆ. ಇದು ನಮ~
!ಾ7 ೆ ಮ ೆqಾKದುP, ಯGಎ%ೆ|ೕ; ಉದ ಮದ ? ನನ]ನು] ^ೊಡK4=ೊಂಡು Hೕವನ
ಾಡುU>ರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ. WೕKರು6ಾ ೆY ನನ] ವ ವQಾರದ ?ನ :ಾಟ ನ*ಗSಂದ ನನ ಾದ ಸಮ%ೆ ಯ
ಸಂಬಂಧ ಾ ಯ ೊರV4=ೊಡಲು ಾಗ ೕಕ ಹಕು ಾ ೇ ಶ ಾಲಯ ಕkೇ ಯ ? ದೂರು
ಅH ಯನು] ಸJತಃ ಾ ೇ ೕ7ದುP ಈ ದೂರು ಅH ಯ ಸಂಬಂಧ ನನ] QೇS=ೆ ಏ ೆಂದ1ೆ.

K9ೕ, Fಾ ಂL ಇ,Nಾ9 ಎಂಬ rೆವಲuvಂn :ಾಲು ಾ =ೆಯ ಸಂ%ೆOಯ ? ಾನು
ಾ ೇHಂn :ಾಟ ನ* ಆKದುP, ಈ ಸಂ%ೆOಯ ? ಇತ1ೆ :ಾಟ ನ*ಗZಾದ 1. EFಾ
ಬುರುಮG H ಓ%ಾJG, 2. ಲ ^ಾ.E ಓ%ಾJG, 3. ಮಂಜು ಾg.ಎ ಕುಲಕh , 4. ೕi
!ಾಬು1ಾž ಕುಲಕh , 5. Cೕಹ,.ಆ*.ಕಗ ಾಳ ರವರುಗZಾKದುP, ನಮ~ ಸಂ%ೆO ೆ Qಾ
qಾವl ೇ ಅ ೕಕೃತ ಕkೇ ಇರುವl ಲ?. ಈ Wಂ ೆ ಾ6ೆಲ?ರು %ೇ !ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ನಗರದ,
!ೆಂಗಳ#ರು ದyಣ ^ಾಲೂ?Vನ ಗುSಕಮFೇ ಾ9ಮ, ಉತ>ರಹSz QೋಬSಯ ? ಹಲ6ಾರು ಸ6ೇ
ನಂಬ*ಗಳ ? ಸು ಾರು 12 ಎಕ1ೆ 29 ಗುಂjೆ ಜ\ೕನನು] ಇದುP, ಇದರ ? ಸJಲv ಜ\ೕನನು]
29

ಖ ೕ ಾ7ದುP, ಇನು]Sದ ಜ\ೕನನು] ಾwಂ;6ೆಂಚ* ನ ? 1ೈತ1ೊಂ ೆ ಕ1ಾರುಗಳನು]
QಾV=ೊಳzFಾKರುತ> ೆ.

ಈ <ೕಲ ಂಡ ವ ವQಾರದ ? ಾನು ಾ ೇHಂn :ಾಟ ನ* ಆKರುವ =ಾರಣ ನನ ೆ
(ೇಕrಾ 10% 1ೇ\ನ1ೇಷ, (ಸE ...ಾ' ಅಥ6ಾ ಸಂpಾವ ೆ) ೕಡಲು ಒuvರು^ಾ>1ೆ.
ಇದಲ? ೆ ಈ :ಾ9 ೆ@|ನ ? ಾನು (ೇಕrಾ 12.05% :ಾಲು ಾ =ೆ ಇದುP ಇದ=ೆ ಪBರಕ6ಾK ಹಣ
ಹೂ7=ೆ ಾ7ರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ. WೕKರು6ಾ ೆY <ೕಲ ಂಡ ಎFಾ? :ಾಲು ಾರರುಗZಾದ ಾವl ಒಂದು
ಒಪvಂದ ಾ7=ೊಂಡು ಈ :ಾ9 ೆ@| ಮುಂದುವ1ೆ4ರು^ೆ>ೕ6ೆ. ಆದ1ೆ ಏ=ಾಏV 2013 ರ ನಂತರ
ಎFಾ? :ಾಲು ಾರರುಗಳm ಈ :ಾ9 ೆ@| ಹಣವನು] ಹೂ7=ೆ ಾಡುವlದನು] qಾವl ೇ =ಾರಣ
ೕಡ ೇ ?4ರು^ಾ>1ೆ. ಈ <ೕಲ ಂಡ :ಾ9 ೆ@| =ೆಲಸ ಅಧ ದ ?"ೕ ಂUರುತ> ೆ. ಇದ ಂ ಾK
1ೈತ1ೊಂ ೆ ೇರ6ಾK ಸಂಪಕ ದ ?ರುವ ನನ ೆ QೆZÀÄÑ ^ೊಂದ1ೆ Qಾಗೂ ಒತ>ಡಗಳm
ಏಪ s|ರುತ>6ೆ. ಈ ಸಂಭಂದ ಇತ1ೆ :ಾಲು ಾರರ ? ಾತ ಾ7 ಈ :ಾ9 ೆ@| =ೆಲಸವನು]
ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉ¸À®Ä £Á£ÀÄ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ ¨Áj gÉÊvÀgÀ ¸ÀªÀÄÄäRzÀ°è PÉÃ½ =ೇS=ೊಂ7ರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ. ಆದ1ೆ
ಇದ=ೆ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ೕUಯ ? ಈ <ೕಲ ಂಡ :ಾಲು ಾರರರುಗಳm ಸvಂ 4ರುವl ಲ?.

WೕKರು6ಾ ೆY K9ೕ, Fಾ ಂL ಇ, Nಾ9 :ಾಲು ಾ =ೆ ಸಂ%ೆOಯ (ೇಕrಾ 25%
:ಾಲು ಾ =ೆ 'Qೊಂ ರುವ 89ೕ EFಾ ಬುರು6ಾG H ಓ%ಾJG ರವರು 22.12.2020 ರಂದು
ನನ ೆ ಇ-<ೕG ಸಂ ೇಶವನು] ಕS4 ಇ-<ೕG ನ ? ಈ <ೕಲ ಂಡ :ಾ9 ೆ@| =ೆಲಸದ ? ನನ ೆ
ಆಸV> ಇಲ?6ಾದ =ಾರಣ ನನ] ಹೂ7=ೆಯ ಹಣದ !ಾಪl> ಸು ಾರು 7 =ೋs 86 ಲ 97 %ಾEರ
ಹಣವನು] ೕಡುವಂ^ೆ ಬ1ೆದು ಅK9<ಂ; ಪ9Uಯನು] ಕಳmW4ರು^ಾ>1ೆ.

ನಂತರ ಾಂಕ:23.12.2020 ರಂದು !ೆS ೆY 8.30 ಗಂjೆ ಸಮಯದ ? 89ೕ EFಾ
ಬುಮುG H ಓ%ಾJG ರವರು ಅವರ ದೂರ6ಾh ಸಂ•ೆ :9422380169 ಂದ ನನ] ದೂರ6ಾh
ಸಂ•ೆ :9980606060 ೆ ಕ1ೆ ಾ7 ಜಯನಗರದ ?ರುವ ಎಂ.ಇ.ಎ ಾ9ಂL ಬS ಬರುವಂ^ೆ
US4ರು^ಾ>1ೆ. ಅದರಂ^ೆ ಾನು ಸದ ಾ9ಂL ಹU>ರ ಇ ೇ ನ ಸಮಯ 11 ಗಂjೆ ೆ QೋKದುP,
ಈ <ೕಲ ಂಡ :ಾ9 ೆ@|ನ
ೆ@|ನ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಾತ ಾ7 ಈ ವ ವQಾರವನು] ಮುಂದುವ1ೆಸಲು ನನ ೆ
ಇಷ|Eಲ?6ಾದ =ಾರಣ ಾನು ಈ Wಂ ೆ 2011 ೇ ಇಸEwಂದ ಇ ?ಯವ1ೆ ೆ ಹೂ7=ೆ ಾ7ದ
ಸು ಾರು 1 =ೋs 90 ಲ ಹಣ=ೆ ಪBರಕ6ಾK ಈಗ 7 =ೋs 86 ಲ 97 %ಾEರಗಳ ಹಣವನು]
ೕಡುವಂ^ೆ =ೇSರು^ಾ>1ೆ.ೆ ಇದ=ೆ ಈ ಸಂದಭ ದ ? ೕವl =ೇಳmವಷು| ಹಣವನು] ಾನು ೕಡಲು
ನನ] ಬS ಅಷು| ಹಣEಲ? ಏ=ಾಏV ಈ ೕU ಹಣ =ೇSದ1ೆ Qೇ ೆ =ೊಡುವlದು ಮತು> ೕವl ಈ
ವ ವQಾರ ಂದ Qೊರ Qೋಗಲು =ಾರಣ ಏನು ಎಂದು =ೇSರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ.ೆ
30

ಇದ=ೆ 89ೕ EFಾ ಓ%ಾJG ರವರು ೕನು ನನ] ಬS qಾವl ೇ =ಾರಣ =ೇಳ!ೇಡ
ನನ ೆ ನ] ೊ^ೆ ವ ವQಾರ ಾಡಲು ಇಷ|Eಲ?
ಇಷ|Eಲ?6ೆಂದು QೇS ನ] ಾU ಬು P ^ೋ ಸ!ೇಡ
ಎಂದು ಅ6ಾಚ ಶಬPಗSಂದ !ೈದು ಾU ಂದ ೆ ಾ7 :ಾ9ಣ !ೆದ =ೆ QಾVರು^ಾ>1ೆ.ೆ ಆದP ಂದ
ಈ 89ೕ EFಾ ಬುರುಮG H ಓ%ಾJG ರವರ EರುದP =ಾನೂನು ೕ^ಾ ಕ9ಮ ಜರುKಸ!ೇ=ೆಂದು
=ೋ ಈ ನನ] QೇS=ೆಯನು] ೕ7ರು^ೆ>ೕ ೆ.ೆ

ಓ ೋ7 ಸ w ೆ.
¸À»/-"

(Emphasis added)

If a perusal of the complaint and the justification by the

complainant is seen, it is purely a financial transaction between the

two that had gone wrong. All that the statement of the

complainant before the DCRE also is, 'do not show your

casteiest mindset'. These statements are amplified and glorified

by the Police while filing the charge sheet.

16. The offences against the petitioner are the ones

punishable under Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of the Act.

They read as follows:

"3. Punishments for offences of atrocities.--(1)
Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe,--
... ... ...
31

(r) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to
humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view;

(s) abuses any member of a Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within
public view;

(2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste
or a Scheduled Tribe,--
... ... ...

(v-a) commits any offence specified in the Schedule, against a
person or property, knowing that such person is a
member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe or
such property belongs to such member, shall be
punishable with such punishment as specified under the
Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) for such offences and
shall also be liable to fine."

(Emphasis supplied)
Section 3 deals with punishment for offences of atrocities. Section

3(1)(r) punishes a person who intentionally insults or intimidates

with intent to humiliate a member of a scheduled caste or a

scheduled tribe in a place within a public view. Sub-clause (s)

punishes a person who abuses a member of Scheduled Caste or

Scheduled Tribe by caste name in any place within public view.

Section 3(2)(v-a) which punishes a person who commits any

offence against a person or property knowing that such person is a

member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The other offences
32

alleged are the ones punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of the

IPC.

17. The aforesaid provisions have fallen for interpretation

before the Apex Court in plethora of judgments. I deem it

appropriate to notice the judgment rendered in the case of HITESH

VERMA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND1, wherein the Apex Court

holds as follows:

"14. Another key ingredient of the provision is insult
or intimidation in "any place within public view". What is to
be regarded as "place in public view" had come up for
consideration before this Court in the judgment reported
as Swaran Singh v. State [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8
SCC 435 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 527] . The Court had drawn
distinction between the expression "public place" and "in
any place within public view". It was held that if an offence
is committed outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a
house, and the lawn can be seen by someone from the
road or lane outside the boundary wall, then the lawn
would certainly be a place within the public view. On the
contrary, if the remark is made inside a building, but some
members of the public are there (not merely relatives or
friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the
public view (sic) [Ed. : This sentence appears to be
contrary to what is stated below in the extract from Swaran
Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 435, at p. 736d-e, and in the
application of this principle in para 15, below:"Also, even if
the remark is made inside a building, but some members of
the public are there (not merely relatives or friends) then

1
(2020) 10 SCC 710
33

also it would be an offence since it is in the public view."] .
The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 443-44, para 28)

"28. It has been alleged in the FIR that Vinod
Nagar, the first informant, was insulted by Appellants
2 and 3 (by calling him a "chamar") when he stood
near the car which was parked at the gate of the
premises. In our opinion, this was certainly a place
within public view, since the gate of a house is
certainly a place within public view. It could have
been a different matter had the alleged offence been
committed inside a building, and also was not in the
public view. However, if the offence is committed
outside the building e.g. in a lawn outside a house,
and the lawn can be seen by someone from the road
or lane outside the boundary wall, the lawn would
certainly be a place within the public view. Also,
even if the remark is made inside a building, but
some members of the public are there (not merely
relatives or friends) then also it would be an offence
since it is in the public view. We must, therefore, not
confuse the expression "place within public view"
with the expression "public place". A place can be a
private place but yet within the public view. On the
other hand, a public place would ordinarily mean a
place which is owned or leased by the Government
or the municipality (or other local body) or
gaonsabha or an instrumentality of the State, and
not by private persons or private bodies."
(emphasis in original)

15. As per the FIR, the allegations of abusing the
informant were within the four walls of her building. It is
not the case of the informant that there was any member
of the public (not merely relatives or friends) at the time of
the incident in the house. Therefore, the basic ingredient
that the words were uttered "in any place within public
view" is not made out. In the list of witnesses appended to
the charge-sheet, certain witnesses are named but it could
not be said that those were the persons present within the
four walls of the building. The offence is alleged to have
taken place within the four walls of the building. Therefore,
in view of the judgment of this Court in Swaran
34

Singh [Swaran Singh v. State, (2008) 8 SCC 435 : (2008)
3 SCC (Cri) 527] , it cannot be said to be a place within
public view as none was said to be present within the four
walls of the building as per the FIR and/or charge-sheet.

16. There is a dispute about the possession of
the land which is the subject-matter of civil dispute
between the parties as per Respondent 2 herself.
Due to dispute, the appellant and others were not
permitting Respondent 2 to cultivate the land for the
last six months. Since the matter is regarding
possession of property pending before the civil court,
any dispute arising on account of possession of the
said property would not disclose an offence under
the Act unless the victim is abused, intimidated or
harassed only for the reason that she belongs to
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

17. In another judgment reported as Khuman
Singh v. State of M.P. [Khuman Singh v. State of M.P.,
(2020) 18 SCC 763 : 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1104], this
Court held that in a case for applicability of Section
3(2)(v) of the Act, the fact that the deceased
belonged to Scheduled Caste would not be enough to
inflict enhanced punishment. This Court held that
there was nothing to suggest that the offence was
committed by the appellant only because the
deceased belonged to Scheduled Caste. The Court held
as under:

"15. As held by the Supreme Court, the
offence must be such so as to attract the offence
under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act. The offence must
have been committed against the person on the
ground that such person is a member of Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribe. In the present case, the
fact that the deceased was belonging to "Khangar"
Scheduled Caste is not disputed. There is no
evidence to show that the offence was committed
only on the ground that the victim was a member of
the Scheduled Caste and therefore, the conviction of
the appellant-accused under Section 3(2)(v) of the
35

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention
of Atrocities) Act is not sustainable."

18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not
established merely on the fact that the informant is a
member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an
intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste
or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim
belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties
are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of
hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over
the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled
Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not
made out.

19. This Court in a judgment reported as Subhash
Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra [Subhash
Kashinath Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, (2018) 6 SCC
454: (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 124] issued certain directions in
respect of investigations required to be conducted under
the Act. In a review filed by the Union against the said
judgment, this Court in a judgment reported as Union of
India v. State of Maharashtra [Union of India v. State of
Maharashtra, (2020) 4 SCC 761: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 686]
reviewed the directions issued by this Court and held that if
there is a false and unsubstantiated FIR, the proceedings
under Section 482 of the Code can be invoked. The Court
held as under: (Union of India case [Union of India v. State
of Maharashtra, (2020) 4 SCC 761: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri)
686], SCC p. 797, para 52)

"52. There is no presumption that the
members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes may misuse the provisions of law as a class
and it is not resorted to by the members of the
upper castes or the members of the elite class. For
lodging a false report, it cannot be said that the
caste of a person is the cause. It is due to the
human failing and not due to the caste factor. Caste
is not attributable to such an act. On the other hand,
members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled
Tribes due to backwardness hardly muster the
courage to lodge even a first information report,
36

much less, a false one. In case it is found to be
false/unsubstantiated, it may be due to the faulty
investigation or for other various reasons including
human failings irrespective of caste factor. There
may be certain cases which may be false that can be
a ground for interference by the Court, but the law
cannot be changed due to such misuse. In such a
situation, it can be taken care of in proceeding under
Section 482 CrPC."

20. Later, while examining the constitutionality of
the provisions of the amending Act (Central Act 27 of
2018), this Court in a judgment reported as Prathvi Raj
Chauhan v. Union of India [Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of
India, (2020) 4 SCC 727: (2020) 2 SCC (Cri) 657] held
that proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 of the
Code. It was held as under: (SCC p. 751, para 12)

"12. The Court can, in exceptional cases,
exercise power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing
the cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled
parameters, as already observed while deciding the
review petitions. The legal position is clear, and no
argument to the contrary has been raised."

21. In Gorige Pentaiah [Gorige Pentaiah v. State of
A.P., (2008) 12 SCC 531 : (2009) 1 SCC (Cri) 446] , one of
the arguments raised was non-disclosure of the caste
of the accused but the facts were almost similar as
there was civil dispute between parties pending and
the allegation was that the accused has called abuses
in the name of the caste of the victim. The High Court
herein has misread the judgment of this Court in Ashabai
Machindra Adhagale [Ashabai Machindra Adhagale v. State of
Maharashtra, (2009) 3 SCC 789 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 20] as
it was not a case about the caste of the victim but the fact
that the accused was belonging to upper caste was not
mentioned in the FIR. The High Court of Bombay had
quashed the proceedings for the reason that the caste of the
accused was not mentioned in the FIR, therefore, the offence
under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is not made out. In an
appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court, this
Court held that this will be the matter of investigation as to
37

whether the accused either belongs to or does not belong to
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the High
Court erred in law to dismiss the quashing petition relying
upon later larger Bench judgment.

22. The appellant had sought quashing of the charge-
sheet on the ground that the allegation does not make out
an offence under the Act against the appellant merely
because Respondent 2 was a Scheduled Caste since the
property dispute was not on account of the fact that
Respondent 2 was a Scheduled Caste. The property disputes
between a vulnerable section of the society and a person of
upper caste will not disclose any offence under the Act
unless, the allegations are on account of the victim being a
Scheduled Caste. Still further, the finding that the appellant
was aware of the caste of the informant is wholly
inconsequential as the knowledge does not bar any person to
protect his rights by way of a procedure established by law.

23. This Court in a judgment reported as Ishwar
Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. [Ishwar Pratap Singh v. State
of U.P., (2018) 13 SCC 612 : (2018) 3 SCC (Cri) 818] held
that there is no prohibition under the law for quashing the
charge-sheet in part. In a petition filed under Section 482 of
the Code, the High Court is required to examine as to
whether its intervention is required for prevention of
abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the
ends of justice. The Court held as under : (SCC p. 618,
para 9)

"9. Having regard to the settled legal position on
external interference in investigation and the specific
facts of this case, we are of the view that the High Court
ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section
482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice. There is no
prohibition under law for quashing a charge-sheet in
part. A person may be accused of several offences under
different penal statutes, as in the instant case. He could
be aggrieved of prosecution only on a particular charge
or charges, on any ground available to him in law. Under
Section 482, all that the High Court is required to
examine is whether its intervention is required for
implementing orders under the Criminal Procedure Code
or for prevention of abuse of process, or otherwise to
38

secure the ends of justice. A charge-sheet filed at the
dictate of somebody other than the police would amount
to abuse of the process of law and hence the High Court
ought to have exercised its inherent powers under
Section 482 to the extent of the abuse. There is no
requirement that the charge-sheet has to be quashed as
a whole and not in part. Accordingly, this appeal is
allowed. The supplementary report filed by the police, at
the direction of the Commission, is quashed."

24. In view of the above facts, we find that the charges
against the appellant under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act are not
made out. Consequently, the charge-sheet to that extent is
quashed. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.""

(Emphasis supplied)
The Apex Court holds that the complainant and the accused therein

were at loggerheads with regard to certain civil disputes. Due to

the dispute, the provisions of the Act are misused to harass the

accused. The Apex Court further observes that unless the victim is

abused, intimidated, harassed intentionally by the accused, it would

not constitute an offence under the Atrocities Act.

18. The issue in the case at hand is whether the petitioner

has intentionally abused taking the name of the caste of the

complainant. The complaint before the DCRE is quoted supra. The

statement of the complainant before the DCRE is also quoted supra.

If both are read in tandem, the only allegation by the complainant
39

is that the petitioner has uttered the words 'not to show casteiest

mindset'. Barring this, there is no other allegation by the

complainant himself against the petitioner. This is more a rebuke

than reproach. Furthermore, the element of public view is

suspect.

19. The complainant nowhere narrates in the complaint that

there were eyewitnesses or there were people around him who

have watched the squabble between the two. The eyewitnesses as

observed hereinabove are close friends of the complainant. It is

both their statements that they accidentally came to the spot for

their own work and they had witnessed hurling of abuses. The

statements are verbatim similar. What would unmistakably emerge

on a perusal of the statements is that, abuse taking the name of

the caste of the complainant with an intention to humiliate and

intimidate the complainant was never made by the petitioner. The

so-called eyewitnesses again are to be held to have been procured

later, as there is no narration in the complaint that the incident was

witnessed by two eyewitnesses nor the eyewitnesses would say that

they accompanied the complainant to the ground. Therefore, the
40

statements of witnesses, who are friends of the complainant,

cannot be given any credence.

DELAY AT EVERY STAGE:

20. Insofar as registration of the complaint, it is the incident

which happens on 23.12.2020. If the complainant was so

aggrieved by the hurling of abuses, nothing stopped the

complainant from registering the complaint the very next day or

few days later, before the jurisdictional Police Station. But, the

complainant keeps quiet; 118 days pass by. He does not go

before the Police, but goes before the DCRE. The DCRE keeps the

complaint for three years, gives life to it only in 2024. Though the

complainant cannot be held at fault for the act of DCRE in keeping

the complaint pending, the initial delay of 118 days would be fatal,

apart from the fatalities narrated hereinabove, as it casts a long

shadow on the veracity of the allegations. Above all, there is no

casteiest remark intentionally made by the petitioner as is obtaining

under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the Act. A pure and simple

financial dispute between the partners of a firm is projected

to become a crime under the Act.
41

21. The other offence is under Section 3(2)(v-a) of the Act.

This Section does not get attracted at all. There is no property

belonging to the complainant being taken away by the petitioner,

though it cannot be said that the petitioner was not aware of the

caste of the complainant. Therefore, I have no hesitation to hold

that the provisions of the Act would not get attracted even to their

remotest sense in the case at hand, in the light of the elucidation

by the Apex Court in the case of HITESH VERMA (supra).

Therefore, permitting further trial qua the offences under the Act

would become an abuse of the process of law.

OFFENCES UNDER IPC - SECTIONS 504 AND 506:

22. What remains is the offence under Sections 504 and 506

of the IPC. Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC read as follows:

"504. Intentional insult with intent to provoke
breach of the peace.--Whoever intentionally insults, and
thereby gives provocation to any person, intending or
knowing it to be likely that such provocation will cause him
to break the public peace, or to commit any other offence,
shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for
a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both.

506. Punishment for criminal intimidation.--
Whoever commits the offence of criminal intimidation shall
42

be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with
both;

if threat be to cause death or grievous hurt,
etc.--and if the threat be to cause death or grievous hurt, or
to cause the destruction of any property by fire, or to cause
an offence punishable with death or imprisonment for life, or
with imprisonment for a term which may extend to seven
years, or to impute unchastity to a woman, shall be punished
with imprisonment of either description for a term which may
extend to seven years, or with fine, or with both."

Sections 504 and 506 of the IPC have their ingredients in Section

503 of the IPC. The purport of Section 503 of the IPC need not

detain this Court for long or delve deep to the matter. The Apex

Court in the case of MOHAMMAD WAJID v. STATE OF UTTAR

PRADESH2, has held as follows:

"27. An offence under Section 503 has following
essentials:--

1) Threatening a person with any injury;

(i) to his person, reputation or property; or
(ii) to the person, or reputation of any one in
whom that person is interested.

2) The threat must be with intent;

(i) to cause alarm to that person; or
(ii) to cause that person to do any act which he
is not legally bound to do as the means of
avoiding the execution of such threat; or
2
(2023) SCC OnLine SC 951
43

(iii) to cause that person to omit to do any act
which that person is legally entitled to do as
the means of avoiding the execution of such
threat.

28. Section 504 of the IPC contemplates
intentionally insulting a person and thereby provoking
such person insulted to breach the peace or
intentionally insulting a person knowing it to be likely
that the person insulted may be provoked so as to cause
a breach of the public peace or to commit any other
offence. Mere abuse may not come within the purview
of the section. But, the words of abuse in a particular
case might amount to an intentional insult provoking
the person insulted to commit a breach of the public
peace or to commit any other offence. If abusive
language is used intentionally and is of such a nature as
would in the ordinary course of events lead the person
insulted to break the peace or to commit an offence
under the law, the case is not taken away from the
purview of the Section merely because the insulted
person did not actually break the peace or commit any
offence having exercised self-control or having been
subjected to abject terror by the offender. In judging
whether particular abusive language is attracted by
Section 504, IPC, the court has to find out what, in the
ordinary circumstances, would be the effect of the
abusive language used and not what the complainant
actually did as a result of his peculiar idiosyncrasy or
cool temperament or sense of discipline. It is the
ordinary general nature of the abusive language that is
the test for considering whether the abusive language is
an intentional insult likely to provoke the person
insulted to commit a breach of the peace and not the
particular conduct or temperament of the complainant.

29. Mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or
insolence, may not amount to an intentional insult
within the meaning of Section 504, IPC if it does not
have the necessary element of being likely to incite the
person insulted to commit a breach of the peace of an
offence and the other element of the accused intending
44

to provoke the person insulted to commit a breach of
the peace or knowing that the person insulted is likely
to commit a breach of the peace. Each case of abusive
language shall have to be decided in the light of the
facts and circumstances of that case and there cannot
be a general proposition that no one commits an offence
under Section 504, IPC if he merely uses abusive
language against the complainant. In King
Emperor v. ChunnibhaiDayabhai, (1902) 4 Bom LR 78, a
Division Bench of the Bombay High Court pointed out
that:--

"To constitute an offence under
Section 504, I.P.C. it is sufficient if the insult is of
a kind calculated to cause the other party to lose
his temper and say or do something violent. Public
peace can be broken by angry words as well as
deeds."

(Emphasis supplied)

30. A bare perusal of Section 506 of the IPC makes it
clear that a part of it relates to criminal intimidation. Before an
offence of criminal intimidation is made out, it must be
established that the accused had an intention to cause alarm
to the complainant.

31. In the facts and circumstances of the case and more
particularly, considering the nature of the allegations levelled
in the FIR, a prima facie case to constitute the offence
punishable under Section 506 of the IPC may probably could
be said to have been disclosed but not under Section 504 of
the IPC. The allegations with respect to the offence punishable
under Section 504 of the IPC can also be looked at from a
different perspective. In the FIR, all that the first
informant has stated is that abusive language was used
by the accused persons. What exactly was uttered in the
form of abuses is not stated in the FIR. One of the
essential elements, as discussed above, constituting an
offence under Section 504 of the IPC is that there
should have been an act or conduct amounting to
intentional insult. Where that act is the use of the
abusive words, it is necessary to know what those
45

words were in order to decide whether the use of those
words amounted to intentional insult. In the absence of
these words, it is not possible to decide whether the
ingredient of intentional insult is present."

(Emphasis supplied)

The Apex Court holds that mere abuse, discourtesy, rudeness or

insolence would not amount to intentional insult under Section 504

of the IPC. The same goes with Section 506 of the IPC. If the

elucidation of law by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted judgment

is noticed, what would unmistakably emerge is that, the entire

episode of crime is a story twined on a financial dispute. The Apex

Court in the very judgment further observed that in such cases the

High Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.

should read between the lines and obliterate the crime. The Apex

Court also considers the fatality of a criminal case on delay in

lodging the FIR. It reads as follows:

"DELAY IN LODGING THE FIR

36. The alleged incident is said to have occurred
sometime in the year 2021. There is no reference to any
date or time of the incident in the FIR. The allegations
are too vague and general. Had it been the case of
prompt registration of the FIR, probably the police
might have been able to recover Rs. 2 Lakh from the
possession of the accused persons alleged to have been
46

forcibly taken away from the pocket of the first
informant. The FIR also talks about a document on
which the first informant and his brother were forced to
put their signatures. We wonder, whether the
investigating agency was in a position to collect or
recover any such document from the accused persons
containing their signatures in the course of the
investigation, more particularly when the State says
that the investigation is over and the charge sheet is
also ready. In the absence of all this material, how is
the State going to prove its case against the accused
persons. The FIR in a criminal case is an extremely vital
and valuable piece of evidence for the purpose of
corroborating the oral evidence adduced at the trial. The
object of insisting upon lodging of the FIR to the police
in respect of commission of an offence is to obtain early
information regarding the circumstances in which the
crime was committed, the names of the actual culprits
and the part played by them as well as names of the eye
witnesses present at the scene of occurrence.

37. In the aforesaid context, we may clarify that delay
in the registration of the FIR, by itself, cannot be a ground for
quashing of the FIR. However, delay with other attending
circumstances emerging from the record of the case rendering
the entire case put up by the prosecution inherently
improbable, may at times become a good ground to quash the
FIR and consequential proceedings. If the FIR, like the one
in the case on hand, is lodged after a period of more
than one year without disclosing the date and time of
the alleged incident and further without any plausible
and convincing explanation for such delay, then how is
the accused expected to defend himself in the trial. It is
altogether different to say that in a given case, in the
course of investigation the investigating agency may be
able to ascertain the date and time of the incident, etc.
The recovery of few incriminating articles may also at
times lend credence to the allegations levelled in the
FIR. However, in the absence of all such materials
merely on the basis of vague and general allegations
levelled in the FIR, the accused cannot be put to trial.
47

38. The learned Additional Advocate General appearing
for the State vehemently submitted that considering the gross
criminal antecedents of the appellants before us, the criminal
proceedings may not be quashed. The learned Additional
Advocate General appearing for the State in her written
submissions has furnished details in regard to the antecedents
of the appellants. A bare look at the chart may give an
impression that the appellants are history sheeters and
hardened criminals. However, when it comes to quashing of
the FIR or criminal proceedings, the criminal antecedents of
the accused cannot be the sole consideration to decline to
quash the criminal proceedings. An accused has a legitimate
right to say before the Court that howsoever bad his
antecedents may be, still if the FIR fails to disclose
commission of any offence or his case falls within one of the
parameters as laid down by this Court in the case of Bhajan
Lal (supra), then the Court should not decline to quash the
criminal case only on the ground that the accused is a history
sheeter. Initiation of prosecution has adverse and harsh
consequences for the persons named as accused.
In Directorate of Revenuev. Mohammed Nisar Holia, (2008) 2
SCC 370, this Court explicitly recognises the right to not to be
disturbed without sufficient grounds as one of the underlying
mandates of Article 21 of the Constitution. Thus, the
requirement and need to balance the law enforcement power
and protection of citizens from injustice and harassment must
be maintained. It goes without saying that the State owes a
duty to ensure that no crime goes unpunished but at the same
time it also owes a duty to ensure that none of its subjects are
unnecessarily harassed."

(Emphasis supplied)

On the aforesaid circumstances, the Apex Court in the very

judgment holds that the High Court exercising jurisdiction under

Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. should read between the lines of the

complaint to annul manifestly frivolous or vexatious complaint being
48

registered to wreak vengeance. The Apex Court has held as

follows:

"34. At this stage, we would like to observe
something important. Whenever an accused comes
before the Court invoking either the inherent powers
under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC) or extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of
the Constitution to get the FIR or the criminal
proceedings quashed essentially on the ground that
such proceedings are manifestly frivolous or vexatious
or instituted with the ulterior motive for wreaking
vengeance, then in such circumstances the Court owes a
duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more
closely. We say so because once the complainant
decides to proceed against the accused with an ulterior
motive for wreaking personal vengeance, etc., then he
would ensure that the FIR/complaint is very well
drafted with all the necessary pleadings. The
complainant would ensure that the averments made in
the FIR/complaint are such that they disclose the
necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence.
Therefore, it will not be just enough for the Court to
look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint
alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the
necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence
are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious
proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many
other attending circumstances emerging from the
record of the case over and above the averments and, if
need be, with due care and circumspection try to read in
between the lines. The Court while exercising its
jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC or
Article 226 of the Constitution need not restrict itself
only to the stage of a case but is empowered to take
into account the overall circumstances leading to the
initiation/registration of the case as well as the
materials collected in the course of investigation. Take
for instance the case on hand. Multiple FIRs have been
registered over a period of time. It is in the background
49

of such circumstances the registration of multiple FIRs
assumes importance, thereby attracting the issue of
wreaking vengeance out of private or personal grudge
as alleged.

35. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Golconda Linga
Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522, a two-Judge Bench of this Court
elaborated on the types of materials the High Court can assess
to quash an FIR. The Court drew a fine distinction between
consideration of materials that were tendered as evidence and
appreciation of such evidence. Only such material that
manifestly fails to prove the accusation in the FIR can be
considered for quashing an FIR. The Court held:--

"5. ...Authority of the court exists for
advancement of justice and if any attempt is made to
abuse that authority so as to produce injustice, the
court has power to prevent such abuse. It would be an
abuse of the process of the court to allow any action
which would result in injustice and prevent promotion of
justice. In exercise of the powers court would be
justified to quash any proceeding if it finds that initiation
or continuance of it amounts to abuse of the process of
court or quashing of these proceedings would otherwise
serve the ends of justice. When no offence is disclosed
by the complaint, the court may examine the question
of fact. When a complaint is sought to be quashed,
it is permissible to look into the materials to
assess what the complainant has alleged and
whether any offence is made out even if the
allegations are accepted in toto.

6. In R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC
866 : 1960 Cri LJ 1239, this Court summarised some
categories of cases where inherent power can and
should be exercised to quash the proceedings : (AIR p.
869, para 6)

(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal
bar against the institution or continuance e.g.
want of sanction;
50

(ii) where the allegations in the first information
report or complaint taken at its face value and
accepted in their entirety do not constitute the
offence alleged;

(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence,
but there is no legal evidence adduced or
the evidence adduced clearly or manifestly
fails to prove the charge.

7. In dealing with the last category, it is
important to bear in mind the distinction between
a case where there is no legal evidence or where
there is evidence which is clearly inconsistent
with the accusations made, and a case where
there is legal evidence which, on appreciation,
may or may not support the accusations. When
exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the
Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark
upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question
is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable
appreciation of it accusation would not be
sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge.
Judicial process, no doubt should not be an instrument
of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be
circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and
should take all relevant facts and circumstances into
consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an
instrument in the hands of a private complainant to
unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At
the same time the section is not an instrument handed
over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and
bring about its sudden death....."
(Emphasis supplied)"

(Emphasis supplied)

The elucidation of law by the Apex Court in the afore-quoted

judgment would clearly become applicable to the facts obtaining in
51

the case at hand. The Courts must remain vigilant against the

weaponization of criminal law for setting the civil disputes. The

law when misused ceases to be a shield and becomes a

sword. The complainant, to wreak vengeance or arm twist the

petitioner for financial dispute, has made use of the criminal justice

system. The subject complaint is a blade of vengeance,

cloaked in the garb of law. A criminal trial, if permitted to

proceed on the aforenarrated glaring facts, it would amount

to an egregious abuse of legal machinery and would

undoubtedly result in patent injustice.

23. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

(i) Criminal petition is allowed.

(ii) The proceedings in Special Case No.943 of 2024 pending before the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru, arising out of Crime No.126 of 2024, stands quashed.

All pending I.A.s' stand disposed, as a consequence.

Sd/-

(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE nvj CT:MJ

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court