Karnataka High Court
Ashok Reddy S/O Mallikarjun Reddy ... vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 August, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 KAR 3305
1 CRL.P.No.200044/2014
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
CRIMINAL PETITION No.200044/2014
BETWEEN:
Ashok Reddy
S/o Mallikarjun Reddy
Degalmadi, Age: 52 years
Occ: Income Tax Officer (CIR)
R/o Bhagyawanti Nagar
Jewargi Road
Gulbarga-585 102
... Petitioner
(By Sri R.V. Nadagouda, Advocate)
AND:
1. The State of Karnataka
Through Ashok Nagar P.S.
2. Superintendent of Police
Civil Rights Enforcement
Directorate, Aiwan-E-Shahi
Gulbarga-585 102
... Respondents
(By Sri Maqbool Ahmed, HCGP for R1;
By Sri C.Jagadish, Advocate for R2 - Absent)
2 CRL.P.No.200044/2014
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the Cr.No.124/2011 dated
19.11.2011 & FIR No.80/2011 produced at Annexure-A
pending on the file of the Respondent/Ashok Nagar P.S.
Gulbarga.
This petition is coming on for Final Hearing, this day,
the Court made the following:
ORDER
"Whether the proceedings in Crime No.124/2011 of Ashok Nagar Police Station, Gulbarga, amount to abuse of process of the Court and their continuation lead to failure of justice?" is the question involved in this case.
2. The petitioner joined the service of Income Tax Department as Lower Division Clerk and reported to duty on 12.10.1982 in the office of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru. He was promoted as Upper Division Clerk on 26.05.1987. He was further promoted as Income Tax Officer on 11.07.2007 and at the time of 3 CRL.P.No.200044/2014 filing of this petition, he was working as Income Tax Officer at Gulbarga. He was appointed in the quota reserved for Scheduled Tribe on the basis of the certificate dated 15.05.1980 furnished by him as per Annexure-B issued by the Tahsildar and Executive Magistrate, North Solapur.
3. On 19.11.2011, the Police Inspector, Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate, Gulbarga, filed complaint before the Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, Ashok Nagar Police Station, Gulbarga. The complaint states that the same is filed on the basis of the orders dated 15.11.2011 issued by the Additional Director General of Police, Civil Rights Enforcement Directorate, Bengaluru.
4. It was alleged in the complaint that though the petitioner belonged to 'Reddy community', a non Scheduled Tribe, he obtained false caste certificate from the Tahsildar, Solapur (North) claiming that he belongs 4 CRL.P.No.200044/2014 to 'Mannervarlu community' a Scheduled Tribe. It was alleged that on the basis of such certificate, he secured employment reserved for Scheduled Tribe community thereby, deprived the candidate of that community and committed offence of forgery, cheating etc., and the offences under Section 3(1)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. On the basis of such complaint respondent No.1 police have registered FIR in Cr.No.124/2011 and taken up investigation.
5. The petitioner was appointed on the basis of the certificate Annexure-B which was issued by the Tahsildar, North Solapur. He was resident of Solapur, Maharashtra. He was governed by Maharashtra Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-notified Tribes (Vimilkta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Special Backward Category (Regulation of 5 CRL.P.No.200044/2014 Issuance and Verification of) Caste Certificate Act, 2000 (for short 'the Act').
6. The Act provides for verification of the caste certificate issued by the competent authorities. Section 6(1) of the said Act states that verification of the caste certificate shall be done by the scrutiny committee constituted by the Government by a notification in the official gazette. As per Section 2(e) of the said Act, the Government means Government of Maharashtra. As per Section 2(k) of the said Act, Scrutiny Committee means committee constituted under Section 6(1) of the said Act.
7. Section 11(1) of the said Act provides for prosecution of the person who obtains a false caste certificate furnishing false information or false statement or documents or by any other fraudulent means. It prescribes punishment of rigorous imprisonment, which may extend upto two years. 6 CRL.P.No.200044/2014
8. Section 11(2) of the said Act, which deals with taking cognizance for the offences under the Act, reads as follows:
"11(2). No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under this section except upon a complaint in writing, made by the Scrutiny Committee or by any other officer duly authorized by the Scrutiny Committee for this purpose."
9. From the reading of Section 11(2), it becomes clear that the Court cannot take cognizance of the offence under Section 11(1) unless the scrutiny committee or any other officer authorized by scrutiny committee files complaint in writing.
10. Section 12 (b) of the Act states that offence under the Act shall be tried by any Magistrate as per Section 265 Cr.P.C. Section 2 (d) Cr.P.C. defines 'complaint' as allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under the 7 CRL.P.No.200044/2014 Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.
11. Thus it becomes clear that to prosecute for an offence under Section 11 of the aforesaid Act, the complainant has to file complaint before Magistrate and not before the Police.
12. Annexure-A does not indicate that, complainant was the member of scrutiny committee or authorized by scrutiny committee. Under the circumstances, even if the investigation is permitted to be continued, there is no scope for the Magistrate to take cognizance on the basis of final report that may be filed by the Investigating Officer in Crime No.124/2011 i.e., impugned FIR.
13. In Rajiv Thapar and others V/s Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 330, the 8 CRL.P.No.200044/2014 Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, if records show that the impugned proceedings before the trial Court would not conclude in conviction, to save precious time of the Court, in such cases proceedings can be quashed. The case on hand is covered by the said judgment.
14. Therefore, the petition is allowed. The FIR in Crime No.124/2011 of Ashok Nagar Police Station District Gulbarga and consequent proceedings, if any, are hereby quashed.
Liberty is reserved to the respondent - State to proceed in accordance with law.
Sd/-
JUDGE NB*/KJJ