Karnataka High Court
Mr Sunil K vs State Of Karnataka on 21 April, 2023
-1-
CRL.P No. 6499 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF APRIL, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 6499 OF 2019
BETWEEN:
1. MR. SUNIL K.,
SON OF KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
AGRICULTURIST,
RESIDING AT DODDAGHATTIGANABBE
VILLAGE AND POST,
HOSKOTE KASABA HOBLI AND TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL - 562 114.
2. SHRI. KRISHNAPPA M.,
SON OF LATE N. MUNIBIYAGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURE,
RESIDING AT DODDAGHATTIGANABBE
VILLAGE AND POST,
HOSKOTE KASABA HOBLI AND TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL - 562 114.
Digitally ...PETITIONERS
signed by
SUMA (BY SRI. DESHPANDE AMIT ANAND, ADVOCATE
Location: PETITION AGAINST PETITIONER NO.2 HAS ABATED IN TERMS OF
HIGH COURT THE ORDER DATED 17.04.2023)
OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
BY THIRUMALASHETTYHALLY
POLICE STATION,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BANGALORE - 560 001.
2. KARTHIK L.,
S/O LAKSHMAPPA,
-2-
CRL.P No. 6499 of 2019
AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS,
DEVARASHETTYHALLY ROAD,
NEAR RACCHE KATTE,
KODIHALLI VILLAGE,
JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI,
HOSAKOTE TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL - 562 114.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. KRISHNA KUMAR K. K., HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1;
SRI. SANDEEP C. T., ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)
THIS CRL.P IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE F.I.R IN
CR.NO.97/2019 REGISTERED BY THE THIRUMALASHETTY HALLI
POLICE STATION, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER
SECTIONS 323, 324, 341, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 149 OF
IPC, 1860 AND ALSO UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF THE
SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES) ACT VIDE ANNEXURE-A BY ALLOWING THE CRIMINAL
PETITION.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 in Crime No.97/2019, registered by the respondent No.1 on the information of the respondent No.2, for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and also under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, -3- CRL.P No. 6499 of 2019 'the Act of 1989') have filed this petition challenging the prosecution initiated against them.
2. The case of the prosecution was that the respondent No.2, a resident of Kodihalli village working in the home of Smt. Meenakshi at Doddaghattinagabbe village furnished information in writing on 13.08.2019 at 2.15 a.m. alleging that he was instructed by Sri Rahul to take a car that was parked in the Court complex at Hosakote and to drive it to home. When he was on the way from Hosakote to the said village, the accused No.1 and his accomplices followed him and at about 8.30 to 9.00 p.m., they blocked the car near Suguna poultry farm and accused No.1 got down from the car and assaulted the complainant / respondent No.2 and abused him by calling him a bastard and took his caste. The accused No.1 exhorted his accomplices to cut respondent No.2 into pieces. The accomplice allegedly brought out rods and knives and attempted to assault the complainant/respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 is stated to have reversed the car speedily and drove it en route to Bhaktarahalli village and on the way, he called his employer who instructed him to reach his house. The respondent No.2 drove the car to Doddagattinagabbe -4- CRL.P No. 6499 of 2019 village and went to the house of his employer. The accused No.1 and his father and others again reached there and assaulted respondent No.2. He alleged that the other accused also were summoned by the accused No.1 who joined them and assaulted him. The respondent No.2 claimed that he had lodged a complaint against the accused No.1 and others in respect of an assault on him and his friend Mr. Naveen on 05.03.2019. Therefore, he requested the respondent No.1 to take needful action against the accused.
3. Based on this information, the respondent No.1 registered Crime No.97/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and also under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act of 1989 and took up investigation.
4. The petitioners have therefore filed the present criminal petition. This Court in terms of the order dated 13.09.2019, granted stay of all further investigation in Crime No.97/2019 for a period of eight weeks which was extended from time to time. It was reported that the accused No.2 / petitioner No.2 had expired during the pendency of this -5- CRL.P No. 6499 of 2019 proceeding and therefore, in terms of the Order dated 17.04.2023, the petition at the instance of petitioner No.2 had abated.
5. Learned counsel representing the petitioner No.1 submitted that there were apparently no injuries on the respondent No.2. He submitted that the respondent No.2 claimed that he reversed the car and reached his employer's house which meant that the respondent No.2 did not get out of the car and therefore, the offences under Sections 323 and 324 of IPC were not made out. He submitted that for an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act of 1989, the basic ingredients that had to be met, namely, that the respondent No.2 ought to have mentioned in the complaint the caste to which the accused No.1 belonged and the offence must have been committed in a place within public view. The learned counsel contended that no persons were present at the spot of the incident. He submitted that the offence must have been committed in full public view. Since there were no persons present at the spot of the accident, an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act of 1989 was not made out. In this regard, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex -6- CRL.P No. 6499 of 2019 Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others [(2008) 12 SCC 531] and Hitesh Verma v. State of Uttarakhand and Another [(2020) 10 SCC 710]. He further submitted that the respondent No.2 was in the habit of lodging frivolous complaints and that the present complaint is an extension of such frivolous complaints. Therefore, he prayed that the prosecution of the petitioner No.1 be set at naught.
6. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submitted that what is challenged in the present petition is a case registered by the respondent No.1 for offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 149 IPC and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act of 1989. He submitted that this Court ought not to exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C') to set at naught the criminal proceedings against the petitioner No.1. He submitted that the question whether offence was made out or not should be left to the absolute discretion of the Investigating Officer and that this Court should not take up the mantle of the Investigating officer and decide the fate of the investigation. In this regard, he relied upon the -7- CRL.P No. 6499 of 2019 judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Swaran Singh and others v. State through standing counsel and another [(2008) 8 SCC 435] as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramveer Upadhyay and Another v. State of U.P and another [2022 SCC online SC 484], where it was held as follows:
"39. In our considered opinion criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. only because the complaint has been lodged by a political rival. It is possible that a false complaint may have been lodged at the behest of a political opponent. However, such possibility would not justify interference under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to quash the criminal proceedings. As observed above, the possibility of retaliation on the part of the petitioners by the acts alleged, after closure of the earlier criminal case cannot be ruled out. The allegations in the complaint constitute offence under the Atrocities Act. Whether the allegations are true or untrue, would have to be decided in the trial. In exercise of power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., the Court does not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. The Complaint Case No.19/2018 is not such a case which should be quashed at the inception itself -8- CRL.P No. 6499 of 2019 without further Trial. The High Court rightly dismissed the application under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.".
7. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 contended that the accused No.1 has a notorious background inasmuch as he was earlier involved in the assault against the respondent No.2 and another person named Mr. K.S. Naveen and that a case in Crime No.28/2019 was registered by the respondent No.1 - Thirumalashettihalli police station against petitioner No.1 herein and others and after investigation, a charge sheet is filed in Spl. C. No.208/2019. He further submitted that the erstwhile employer (Mr. Janardhan P) of the respondent N.2 had also filed a case against the petitioner No.1 in Crime No.111/2022 before respondent No.1 and that the accused No.1/petitioner No.1 has criminal antecedents and therefore, this Court should not exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set at naught the criminal proceedings against him. He further submits that the fact that the respondent No.2 had lodged a complaint in Crime No.28/2019 which resulted in a charge sheet in Spl. C. No.208/2019, does not justify accused No.1 ganging up with the other accused to assault the respondent No.2. He therefore prays that this Court should not -9- CRL.P No. 6499 of 2019 exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. to set at naught the prosecution.
8. Learned High Court Government Pleader contends that the case is still at the investigation stage and therefore, this Court may not interfere with the proceedings.
9. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner No.1 as well as the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader. I have also perused the material placed on record.
10. The respondent No.2 has placed on record details of earlier criminal cases registered against the petitioner No.1 in Crime No.111/2022 and Crime No.28/2019. The case in Crime No.28/2019 was based on a complaint of the respondent No.2 dated 05.03.2019. The erstwhile employer of the respondent No.2 had also lodged a complaint on 22.07.2022 which resulted in Crime No.111/2022. The case in question was based upon an information furnished by respondent No.2 dated 12.08.2019. This could be a fall out of the criminal case in Crime No.28/2019 which resulted in a charge sheet in Spl. C.
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 6499 of 2019No.208/2019. However, the information furnished by the respondent No.2 discloses that when he was driving his car towards the home of his employer, he was confronted by the accused No.1 and others and that accused No.1 exhorted his accomplices to kill the respondent No.2. The accomplices of the accused No.1 are claimed to have been armed with rods and knives and assaulted respondent No.2. There is no statement made in the information furnished that either the car or respondent No.2 suffered any damage or injury respectively. On the contrary, the respondent No.2 claimed that he reversed the car and drove back to his employer's house and that near the house of his employer too the accused No.1 and his father started assaulting the respondent No.2. It is rather strange that the respondent No.2 has not even suffered a scratch on his body even though, the respondent No.2 alleged that the accused No.1 and his accomplices were armed to the teeth. The allegation that the accused No.1 abused the respondent No.2 by his caste is itself not sufficient to constitute an offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act of 1989. It has been repeatedly held that for an offence under Section 3 of the Act of 1989 to be attracted, such offence must be committed by a
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 6499 of 2019person who does not belong to scheduled caste and the offence should be committed in a place within the public view. In the case on hand, the respondent No.2 did not mention in the complaint the caste to which the accused No.1 belonged. He also did not mention whether there were any public who had gathered at the time of the commission of the offence. The offence was allegedly committed on 12.08.2019 between 8.30 to 9.00 p.m. and the respondent No.2 did not indicate whether there was any public gathered at the spot of the crime. Further the respondent No.2 could not have stepped out of the car since he claimed that he reversed the car and drove back to his employer's house. Therefore, it cannot be said that an offence under Section 3 of the Act of 1989 was committed by the accused No.1. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma (supra) held as follows:
"13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-
- 12 -
CRL.P No. 6499 of 2019economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that Respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that Respondent No.2 is a member of Scheduled Caste.
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 [(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
- 13 -CRL.P No. 6499 of 2019
(not merely relatives or friends) then it would not be an offence since it is not in the public view (sic)*. 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 gaon sabha or an instrumentality of the State, and not by private persons or private bodies."
(emphasis in original)."
Further the Hon'ble Apex Court in Gorige Pentaiah's case (supra) held as follows:
"6. In the instant case, the allegation of Respondent No.3 in the entire complaint is that on 27.5.2004, the
- 14 -CRL.P No. 6499 of 2019
appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to have alleged that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (Respondent 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate Respondent No. 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law."
11. No doubt the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramveer Upadhyay's case (supra) had held that this Court in exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. should not examine the correctness of the allegations in a complaint except in exceptionally rare cases, where it is patently clear that the allegations are frivolous or do not disclose any offence. In the case on hand, there has been political rivalry between the accused No.1 and some handlers of respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 had admittedly lodged a complaint on
- 15 -
CRL.P No. 6499 of 201905.03.2019 in Crime No.28/2019 in respect of which, a charge sheet was filed in Spl.C. No.208/2019. It could quite be possible that the accused No.1 was enraged over this. However, except the self serving statement that the accused No.1 and his accomplices threatened him, there is no material to establish a case under Sections 323, 324, 341, 504 and 506 read with section 149 of IPC or under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act of 1989. Consequently, the investigation of the case would only arm a political rival and this would only result in escalation of the tension between two groups in the locality. In that view of the matter, it is appropriate that all criminal proceedings initiated in Crime No.97/2019 registered by the respondent No.1 on the basis of the information furnished by the respondent No.2 and pending trial before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is terminated. Hence, the following:
ORDER The petition is allowed. The prosecution of the petitioner No.1 in Crime No.97/2019 registered by the respondent No.1 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 341, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and
- 16 -CRL.P No. 6499 of 2019
also under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on the basis of the information furnished by the respondent No.2 and which is pending trial before the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, is quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE sma List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23