Dismissed

Sri. Ranganayak S/O Ramanjanalu Tapela v. the State

Karnataka HC7 Sept 2018CRL.P/101118/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court dismissed the petitioner's challenge to an order rejecting an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C. to summon witnesses to prove land acquisition details in a case alleging atrocities under the SC/ST (PoA) Act.

What did the court decide?

No relief; the application to summon witnesses was rejected by the trial court and the High Court dismissed the petition to quash that order.

Sri. Ranganayak S/O Ramanjanalu Tapela Vs the State — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 07^th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION No.101118 OF 2018

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI. RANGANAYAK S/O RAMANJANALU TAPELA RPTD BY CHAIRMAN SHIVASHARANA MADAR CHANNAYYA SEVA SANGHA (R) SUDAGAD CHALL HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD.

¶8

... PETITIONER

¶9

(By Sri. HEMANTHKUMAR L HAVARAGI ADV.)

¶10

AND:

¶11

THE STATE TOWN POLICE STATION, HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD, REPRESENTED BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH AT DHARWAD.

¶12

... RESPONDENT

¶13

(By Sri.PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP)

¶14

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RECORDS, PERUSE THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 11.04.2018 PASSED BY THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSION JUDGE COURT, DHARWAD IN SUMMARY NO.02/2017 AND SUMMONED TO DHARWAD DISTRICT ADMINISTRATION FOR

¶15

: 2 : Crl.P. No.101118/2018

¶16

EVIDENCE ON ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO SPECIAL PROVISION OF THE SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT 1989, SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) RULES 1995, PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(1)(v), 3(1)(xv) AND 3(2)(vii) OF SC/ST (PoA) ACT 1989 AND UNDER SECTION 166, 167, 200, 321, 403, 503, 504 OF IPC.

¶17

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

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

The petitioner is calling in question the order dated 11.04.2018 passed by the II Additional District Judge, Dharwad in Summary Case No.2 of 2017 on the application of the petitioner under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

¶20

The petitioner filed complaint in Crime No.72/2017 before Hubballi Town Police Station against the Railway Manager, Divisional Railway Manager and Assistant Divisional Railway Manager, South-Western Railways, Hubballi. The petitioner alleged that the land bearing Sy.No.119 of M.Aralikatti village was notified as slum under Karnataka Gazette dated 01.10.1997, and the

¶21

: 3 : Crl.P. No.101118/2018

¶22

petitioner & 210 families belonging to Schedule Castes were residing there by putting up huts. He further alleged that respondents are clearing those huts and evicting the occupants alleging that the said land belongs to the Railway Department.

¶23

The Investigating Officer after

¶24

investigation submitted ‘B’ report to the Court stating that no offence is made out. On notice, the petitioner filed his protest petition to the ‘B’ summary report and adduced evidence on his side.

¶25

He filed application on 24.02.2018 under

¶26

Section 311 of Cr.P.C. to summon the following witnesses:

¶27

(i) Deputy Commissioner / District Magistrate, Dharwad;

¶28

(ii) Assistant Commissioner / Special Land Acquisition Office, Dharwad;

¶29

(iii) Tahasildar, Hubballi;

¶30

(iv) Commissioner, HDMC, Hubballi;

¶31

(v) The Commissioner, Hubballi-Dharwad Police Commissionerate, Hubballi;

¶32

: 4 : Crl.P. No.101118/2018

¶33

(vi) Assistant Commissioner of Police, (South) (Investigation Officer);

¶34

(vii) Special Public Prosecutor appointed under Section 4 of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995.

¶35

In the application, it was contended the properties were not acquired for the Railway purpose and to prove that, summoning the said witnesses to produce the acquisition proceedings, if any, and to give evidence in that regard is required.

¶36

The trial court by the impugned order dated 11.04.2018 rejected the application holding that whether the acquisition set up by the Railway Department is in accordance with law is not the matter to be decided in the case. The Court further held that the complainant has to prove at the first instance the investigating officer has committed error in conducting the investigation and for that

¶37

: 5 : Crl.P. No.101118/2018

¶38

purpose, the witnesses cannot be insisted to appear before the Court and to produce the documents.

¶39

The complainant in the complaint alleged that the Railway authorities are evacuating the slum dwellers who belong to the schedule castes and schedule tribes community and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(v), 3(1)(xv) & 3(2)(vii) of the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 and under Section 166, 167, 200, 321, 403, 503 & 504 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶40

Sections 166 and 167 IPC deal with public servant disobeying the direction under law / of law with intent to cause injury to any person; Section 200 IPC deals with the offence of using a declaration

¶41

knowing the same to be false; Section 321 IPC defines voluntarily causing hurt; Section 504 IPC deals with causing intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace; Section 403 IPC deals with offence of dishonest misappropriation of

¶42

: 6 : Crl.P. No.101118/2018

¶43

property. The provisions of Sections 3(1)(v), 3(1)(xv) & 3(2)(vii) of the SC/ST (PoA) Act deals with the atrocities against persons belonging to Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes.

¶44

The petitioner claimed that though the properties are not the railway properties, the accused claiming the same to be the railway properties are evicting the occupants. If at all he wants to state that the properties were notified as slum and allotted to the alleged victims, he should secure the records from the concerned authorities and produce the same.

¶45

The land acquisition notification or information regarding that and other information he sought to summon could have been secured even under the Right to Information Act. It is not his case that though he applied for the same, the authorities have rejected that.

¶46

: 7 : Crl.P. No.101118/2018

¶47

To prove atrocities or causing hurt etc.

¶48

which were alleged, those documents were not required. Section 311 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked only if the Court finds that summoning of any witnesses is essential for deciding the matter. The trial court rightly found that those documents were not required for deciding whether the final report submitted by the investigating officer is erroneous.

¶49

Even otherwise, it was open to the petitioner to secure the said records by applying to the concerned authorities. For that summoning of documents is not required. This Court does not find any illegality warranting interference of this Court in the matter. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

RK/-

Sri. Ranganayak S/O Ramanjanalu Tapela v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Ranganayak S/O Ramanjanalu Tapela v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Renuka S/O Onkarappa

Kalakappa S/O. Irappa Ryavanaki Vs the State of Karnataka

Malleshappa S/O Devappa Pawar Vs the State

Shivanand Vs the State of Karnataka

Raju S S/O Babu Salunke Vs the State of Karnataka

Dinesh S/O. Timmappa Shetti Vs State of Karnataka