Ashok S/O Dasharat And Ors vs The State Through & Anr on 20 August, 2014

[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

Ashok S/O Dasharat And Ors vs The State Through & Anr on 20 August, 2014

Bench: N.Ananda

                               1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                     GULBARGA BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST 2014

                            BEFORE

           THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANANDA

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.16093/2013

BETWEEN:

1.     Ashok S/o Dasharat
       Age: 35 years
       Occ: Member of Gram Panchayat

2.     Droupati W/o Dasharat
       Age: 52 years, Occ: House hold

3.     Elizabeth W/o Ashok
       Age: 30 years, Occ: House hold

4.     Kasturi W/o Eshwar
       Age: 45 years, Occ: House hold

5.     Devendar S/o Bhemanna
       Age: 50 year, Occ: Agriculture

       All are R/o Kadwad
       Tq. & Dist. Bidar                  ...Petitioners

(By Sri Avinash A. Uploankar, Advocate)

AND:

1.     The State through
       Bagdal Police Station
       Dist. Bidar
                                   2




2.    Lalamma W/o Laloji
      Aged: 55 years, Occ: Labour
      R/o Kadwad village
      Tq. & Dist. Bidar                         ... Respondents

(By Sri Sanjay A. Patil, Addl. SPP for R1;
 Sri Hanmanthraya Sindhol, Advocate for R2)

      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of
Cr.P.C.    praying   to   quash   the   proceedings   in   private
complaint     No.09/2012      (Crime     No.135/2012)      taking
cognizance for the offences under Sections 323, 341, 504,
506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1) (x) of the
SC & ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 on 25.11.2013,
against the petitioners, by the Addl. Sessions Judge at Bidar
and etc.

      This Petition coming on for Admission this day, the
Court made the following:


                            ORDER

The learned Judge of the Special Court constituted to try offences under the provisions of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, (for short 'the Act') has issued process to petitioners for an offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, and also for offences punishable under Sections 323, 3 341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 IPC. Therefore, the petitioners are before this Court.

2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The sworn statement of complainant (second respondent herein) reads thus:

"I am belonging to SC community of Dhor caste. Accused are belonging to Christian community. Near about one year back one day at about 5.30 p.m. I was on the road at my village Kadwad A1 to A5 came there who picked up a quarrel, they abused myself by using the words Suli-Randi. They assaulted with the hands and threatened myself saying that they would killed myself. Then I send the complaint to the police, who have not taken any action. Then I came before this court and filed the complaint now shown to me which is marked as Ex.P1, I had put my T.I. I pray for taking action against the accused."

The sworn statement does not reveal an offence punishable under Section 3 (1) (x) of the Act, which reads thus:

"3. Punishments for offences of atrocities:

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

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

4. In order to attract an offence under Section 3(1) (x) of the Act, the accused should have intentionally insulted or intimidated with an intention to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste and a Scheduled Tribe in any place within public view.

5. As per averments of complaint, complainant had gone to the house of accused to recover hire 5 charges of tractor belonging the complainant. In the sworn statement, complainant has given version that entire incident had taken place on road. The caste of complainant had nothing to do with the dispute between parties. The learned Special Judge, without noticing the averments of complaint and sworn statements, has taken cognizance and issued process to accused.

6. In my considered opinion, the learned Special Judge did not have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and to issue process to accused for an offence under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act. The learned Special Judge should have returned the complaint as provided under Section 201 Cr.P.C. Therefore, I pass the following:

ORDER The petition is accepted. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned 6 Special Judge to return the complaint under Section 201 Cr.P.C.

Sd/-

JUDGE NB*

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court