Allowed

N Manjula D/O Thippaih Setty, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 Nov 2020CRL.P/100677/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash an FIR and complaint. The court found inconsistencies in the complainant's allegations, including conflicting timestamps of incidents on the same day and a belated addition of Section 377D/377E offences, indicating a tendency to misuse the process to harass petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Criminal petition allowed. Proceedings in Crime No.207/2014 quashed confined to the petitioners.

N Manjula D/O Thippaih Setty, Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 26^th DAY OF NOVEMBER 2020

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE Dr.JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶5

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.100677/2015

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

1 . MISS N MANJULA D/O THIPPAIH SETTY, AGED ABOUT: 45 YEARS, OCC: ADVOCATE,

¶8

2 . N. MARUTHI S/O N. THIPPAIH SETTY, AGED ABOUT: 50 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,

¶9

BOTH R/O: SADASHIVANAGAR, SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI.

¶10

... PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY Smt. BHAGYASHREE N.B. AND SRI. RAMACHANDRA A. MALI, ADVS.)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY SIRUGUPPA POLICE NOW REP. BY STATE P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, DHARWAD BENCH, DHARWAD.

¶14

2 . M.S. VENKATAPPA NAYAK, R/O: TAKKALKOTE HOBLI, TQ: SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI.

¶15

.. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, HCGP FOR RESPONDENT NO.1 SRI. PRASHANT MATHAPATI AND

¶16

Crl.P. No.100677/2015

¶17

¶18

SRI. J. BASAVARAJ, ADV. FOR RESPONDENT No.2)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT AND FIR DATED 25.11.2014 REGISTERED IN SIRUGUPPA PS CRIME NO.207/2014 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 506, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 447, 343, 324 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(v) (x) OF SC/ST PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT 1989 AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO INSOFAR AS THE SAME PERTAIN TO THE PETITIONERS HEREIN AS THE SAME BEING ILLEGAL AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶20

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The present petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the ‘Cr.P.C.’) seeking to quash the complaint and FIR dated 25.11.2014 registered in first respondent police station Crime No.207/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 447, 323 and

¶23

Crl.P. No.100677/2015

¶24

¶25

324 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the ‘IPC’).

¶26

The second respondent herein is the

¶27

complainant in the said Crime No.207/2014.

¶28

The first respondent is represented by

¶29

learned High Court Government Pleader and second respondent is being represented by his counsel.

¶30

Heard the arguments from both side. Perused the materials placed before this Court.

¶31

The summary of the case of respondent No.2/complainant in the said Crime No.207/2014 is that

¶32

he has purchased the land bearing Sy.No.8/3 measuring .75 cents from petitioner No.1 herein on 04.01.2010. Since then, he is in possession of the said property. At about 9 o’clock, when he had been to the said land, present petitioner No.1, joined by her brother i.e., petitioner No.2 and one more person by name Manjunath accompanied by four other persons, all of a

¶33

Crl.P. No.100677/2015

¶34

¶35

sudden, assaulted him. When questioned by him (complainant), they abused him in filthy language and threatened him of taking away his life. Both the petitioners herein are said to have caught hold of him, by which time, another accused Maruti, is said to have assaulted him with his hand. Accused Manjunath is said to have assaulted him with a stone. At that time, other two persons who are said to be Parajati and Mallikarjuna, who were said to have standing next to the complainant, rescued him. Then after taking treatment in General Hospital at Takkalkote, he went to the police station and lodged a complaint at 4 o’clock against them.

¶36

The said complaint was registered in the first respondent police station Crime No.207/2014 for the offence punishable under Sections 506, 504, 143, 147, 148, 149, 447, 323 and 324 of IPC. The present

¶37

Crl.P. No.100677/2015

¶38

¶39

petitioners who are accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said crime have filed this petition.

¶40

Learned counsel for the petitioners in her argument canvassed a point that the complainant (respondent No.2) who is politically highly influential person and involved in active politics, by misusing the said position, has lodged false complaints against them. According to the learned counsel, he is son of an Ex-MLA and he has lodged several criminal cases against the petitioners only to grab the immoveable property of the petitioners. Learned counsel submits that respondent No.2 has also filed a private complaint as per Annexure-D wherein he has mentioned about another incident said to have taken place on the very same day on 25.11.2014 at about 3.30 pm. That itself would go

¶41

to show that he is filing series of false case against the petitioners. She further submits that the complaint originally filed by respondent No.2, nowhere whispers

¶42

Crl.P. No.100677/2015

¶43

¶44

about any of the offence punishable under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the ‘SC & ST Act’) whereas the said alleged offence was also introduced in the case 15 days later. This further shows that the complainant in connivance with the first respondent police are tailoring criminal cases against the petitioners as they feel like and to suit their ulterior motive.

¶45

Learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 in his argument submits that the complainant has given the detailed account of the alleged incident, as such, the same has been registered for the alleged offence. He further submits that since the investigation is in progress, the present petition is premature.

¶46

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 also makes a similar submission and further contends that

¶47

Crl.P. No.100677/2015

¶48

¶49

the petitioners herein have been committing offence after offence, as such, in order to protect their interest, they too have filed complaints.

¶50

A perusal of the complaint which is under challenge would go to show that the complainant though has mentioned the date of the complaint as 25.11.2014, but he has not specifically mentioned in the body of the complaint as to exactly on which date, the alleged incident has occurred. He has mentioned that the alleged incident has occurred at 9.00 am. However, a reading of the complaint in its entirety would go to show that the complaint is about an incident which is said to have taken place on the very same day i.e., on 25.11.2014. The said complaint, even according to the complainant, was given at 4.00 pm and the endorsement made by the first respondent police also would go to show that the said complaint was received

¶51

Crl.P. No.100677/2015

¶52

¶53

by them at 4.00 pm on the very same day i.e., on 25.11.2014.

¶54

The very same complainant has also filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C. in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Siruguppa, in PCR No.158/2014 as could be seen from a certified copy of the said complaint which is at Annexure-D. The said complaint goes to show that the complainant therein has accused the present petitioners arraigning them as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said complaint and has alleged an incident which according to him has taken place on 25.11.2014 at 3.30 pm. Though a narration of the incident to some extent appears to be the same, but specifically and in clear terms, the complainant has stated that the incident took place on 25.11.2014 at 3.30 pm. This leads to a serious doubt as to whether on the said day of 25.11.2014 two incidents had taken place one at 9.00 am and another at 3.30 pm. Learned

¶55

Crl.P. No.100677/2015

¶56

¶57

counsel for respondent No.2 could not able to convince the Court on the said doubt expressed by it.

¶58

The second doubt that arise in the same

¶59

background is that, had really at 3.30 pm on 25.11.2014 also, an incident which almost akin to the one alleged in Annexure-C (present complaint) has taken place, what prevented the complainant to mention about the alleged incident said to have taken place at 3.30 pm in his complaint at Annexure-C which was lodged with the police at 4.00 pm on the same day. Had really any of such incident taken place one at 9.00 am and another at

¶60

3.30 pm and the complaint was lodged at 4.00 pm i.e. after occurrence of both the incidents on the same day, the complainant was necessarily expected to mention about both the incidents in his compliant in question. Since, the said complaint was admittedly submitted to the police at 4.00 pm, which was after occurrence of both

¶61

Crl.P. No.100677/2015

¶62

¶63

the alleged incidents, thus, at the threshold itself makes

¶64

the present complaint, in question, a suspectable one.

¶65

Added to the above, as the records would speak

¶66

nothing about the alleged abusing of the complainant by taking the name of his caste is mentioned in the complaint at Annexure-C dated 25.11.2014, as such, no offence alleged under SC & ST Act has been attracted in the said complaint. However, it is stated that after 15 days i.e. on 13.12.2014, it is shown that the very same complainant had written a letter to the Sub-Inspector of Police of Siruguppa stating that he had forgotten to mention in his compliant about the accused abusing him by taking the name of his caste

¶67

and had requested them to take action against the accused even under SC & ST Act. Accordingly, the police have incorporated an offence punishable under Section 3(1)(v) and 3(1)(x) of SC & ST Act also. This act

¶68

of the complainant further leads to a doubt for the

¶69

Crl.P. No.100677/2015

¶70

¶71

reason that, a person who admittedly is not an uneducated and who can put his signature in English language and who could able to lodge several complaints, including the one at Annexure-C and Annexure-D, and simultaneously with respect to one more incident alleged to have been occurred on the very same day, has filed private complaint under Section 200 of Cr.P.C., has forgotten to mention about the accused abusing him by taking the name of his caste.

¶72

Added to this, the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the very same complainant has also instituted against them the criminal case including CC No.37/2011, CC No.575/2013 and CC No.574/2013 in the Courts at Bellary, also has remained undisputed.

¶73

All these aspects clearly go to show that the present complaint at Annexure-C has been filed by the complainant only to deter or harass the petitioners. As

¶74

Crl.P. No.100677/2015

¶75

¶76

such, in order to prevent the abuse of process of law, interference by this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. is warranted.

¶77

Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order.

¶78

ORDER

¶79

The Criminal Petition is allowed. The criminal proceeding in the first respondent PS Crime No.207/2014 stands quashed confining to the present petitioners.

¶80

Sd/JUDGE

¶81

kmv

N Manjula D/O Thippaih Setty, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

N Manjula D/O Thippaih Setty, v. the State of Karnataka

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

Smt.Umadevi W/O Shankarrao Halgekar Vs the State of Karnataka

Anand S/O Omanna Patil Vs Sakira Khudabaz Bellary (Bellary)

Abhijit S/O Mahadev Kabade Vs Smt. Veena W/O Abhijit Kabade

Usha W/O Jogindarsing Badan, Vs Sri.Yallappa Balappa Naik

Kiran S/O. Chandrappa Hirekerur Vs the State of Karnataka

Venugopal Vaidya S/O Annayyachar Vaidya Vs the State of