Partly allowed

Smt.Sampati Bai v. the State and Anr.

Karnataka HC20 Nov 2020CRL.P/200861/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court partly allowed a petition to quash the FIR under the SC/ST Act against a Scheduled Caste accused, ruling that special provisions do not apply to her. However, IPC charges for insult and criminal intimidation were retained.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings under SC/ST Act against petitioner quashed; fresh chargesheet directed to be filed under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC.

Smt.Sampati Bai Vs the State and Anr. — Quashing and FIR | Karnataka HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA KALABURAGI BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 20^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2020

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE M.G. UMA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.200861/2019

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

Smt. Sampati Bai W/o Arunkumar Aged about 35 Years Occ: Nurse R/o Basavakalyan Dist. Bidar - 585 401

¶9

… Petitioner

¶10

(By Sri Ravi B. Patil, Advocate)

¶11

AND:

¶12

The State Through New Town Police Station Bidar represented by Addl. SPP, HCK, Kalaburagi - 585 401

¶13

Arunkumar S/o Bhimsha Hadgal

¶14

Age: 45 Years, Occ: Driver R/o H.No.97, Hudco Colony

¶15

Bidar - 585 401

¶16

… Respondents

¶17

(By Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, HCGP for R1; R2 served)

¶18

¶19

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying to quash the FIR in Crime No.58/2019 of New Town Police Station as at Annexure - A, registered by the 1^st respondent jurisdictional police as against the petitioner and consequently all further proceedings pending on the file of Additional Dist. and Sessions Judge at Bidar offences punishable under Sections 3(1) (r), (s) SC/ST PA Act, arising thereof as illegal and one without jurisdiction.

¶20

This petition coming on for Admission this day, the Court passed the following:

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

The petitioner - accused No.2 is before this Court invoking inherent powers under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) and to quash the criminal proceedings registered in Crime No.58/2019 of New Town Police Station, Bidar, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (for short, ‘the SC/ST Act’) on the basis of

¶23

¶24

the first information lodged by the informant Sri

¶25

Arunkumar.

¶26

Brief facts of the case are that, the informant

¶27

Sri Arunkumar lodged the first information against accused Nos.1 and 2 on 08.04.2019 stating that accused No.2 is his wife and accused No.1 is working as First Division Assistant in ITI College, Basavakalyan. It is stated that on 23.02.2019 both the accused were proceeding on a motorcycle and on seeing the informant both of them picked up quarrel with him. Accused No.1 abused the informant in filthy language by referring to his caste with an intention to humiliate him in the public eyes. Both the accused have criminally intimidated and abused the informant. It is stated that there were several general public who witnessed the incident. Therefore, he requested the police to register the case and to initiate legal action against the accused. Accordingly, the police registered the case and took up investigation. It is stated that now the investigation has been completed and the

¶28

¶29

chargesheet is filed for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (v-a) of the SC/ST Act.

¶30

Heard Sri Ravi B. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gururaj V. Hasilkar, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1 – State. Perused the materials on record.

¶31

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶32

that the petitioner is arrayed as accused No.2 and she is the wife of the informant. She also belongs to Schedule Caste. It is submitted that provisions under special enactment cannot be attracted. He also submitted that there is absolutely no allegations for having committed the offences under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC and while filing the chargesheet, these provisions were included. He further submitted that accused No.2 moved a petition seeking divorce against the informant and therefore, a false complaint has been lodged without any basis.

¶33

¶34

Therefore, it is stated that criminal proceedings initiated against the petitioner is nothing but abuse of process of law and hence, the same is liable to be quashed.

¶35

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader opposing the petition submitted that accused Nos.1 and 2 with the common intention abused the informant in filthy language and also criminally intimidated, with an intention to insult the informant. After due investigation, the chargesheet is filed. Therefore, the petition seeking quashing of the proceedings is not maintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶36

Perused the materials on record in the light of the rival submissions. The informant in the first information stated that accused No.2 being his wife and accused No.1 who was working as First Division Assistant in ITI College, Basavakalyan were found in Bidar together and they picked up quarrel with the informant. Accused No.1 abused the informant in filthy language with an

¶37

¶38

intention to humiliate him by referring to his caste and both the accused have abused him in filthy language which was witnessed by the general public. Even though it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Sections 504 and 506 of IPC could not have been attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶39

The word 'criminal intimidation' is defined

¶40

under Section 503 of IPC, as threatening another person with injury to his person, reputation or property etc. To attract Section 504 of IPC, there must be intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace. In the present case, the informant specifically stated that both the accused have abused him in filthy language within the public eyes and prima facie it invokes Section 504 of IPC i.e., intentionally insulting any person to provoke breach of the peace. Section 506 of IPC is the penal provision for criminal intimidation i.e., threatening with injury to the reputation of a person. Therefore, I am of the opinion that contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that

¶41

¶42

Sections 504 and 506 of IPC are not at all attracted to the facts of the case cannot be accepted.

¶43

The next point that is raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner/accused No.2 also belongs to Scheduled Caste, the provisions of the special enactment cannot be invoked against her. In this regard, Section 3 of the SC/ST Act is to be taken into consideration. The opening words of Section 3 of the SC/ST Act read as: "3 (2) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe". Therefore, the primary requirement to invoke Section 3 of SC/ST Act should be, that the accused should not be the person belonging to either Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes. In the present case, admittedly, accused No.2 belongs to Scheduled Caste and she is the wife of the informant. Under such circumstances, the police could not have invoked Section 3 of the SC/ST Act against the petitioner.

¶44

¶45

Now the question arises as to whether the criminal proceedings initiated against the accused could be quashed. Since the provisions under the special enactment could not be invoked against accused No.2, criminal proceedings in respect of Section 3 of SC/ST Act, is to be quashed. But, however, the criminal proceedings for the offences under the provisions of Indian Penal Code, cannot be quashed as there are prima facie materials against the petitioner for having committed the offences. In this regard, I may place reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand¹ , wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considering the object with which the SC/ST Act was enacted is highlighted and held in Paragraph Nos.9, 10 and 13 as under:-

¶46

“9. The long title of the Act is to prevent the commission of offences of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, to

¶47

1 2020 SCC Online 907

¶48

¶49

provide for Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts for the trial of such offences and for the relief and rehabilitation of the victims of such offences and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.

¶50

The Act was enacted to improve the social economic conditions of the vulnerable sections of the society as they have been subjected to various offences such as indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have been deprived of life and property as well. The object of the Act is thus to punish the violators who inflict indignities, humiliations and harassment and commit the offence as defined under Section 3 of the Act. The Act is thus intended to punish the acts of the upper caste against the vulnerable section of the society for the reason that they belong to a particular community.

¶51

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

¶52

1 0

¶53

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-economic 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."

¶54

Further, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union

¶55

of India Vs State of Maharashtra² , referring to its earlier judgment in Ishwar Pratap Singh and Others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Another³ considered quashing of part of the chargesheet under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., and extracted paragraph No.9 of the said judgment as under:

¶56

“9 Having regard to the settled legal position on external interference in investigation and the specific facts of this case,

¶57

2 (2020) 4 SCC 761

¶58

3 (2018) 13 SCC 612

¶59

1 1

¶60

we are of the view that the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to secure the ends of justice. There is no prohibition under law for quashing a chargesheet in part. A person may be accused of several offences under different penal statutes, as in the instant case. He could be aggrieved of prosecution only on a particular charge or charges, on any ground available to him in law. Under Section 482, all that the High Court is required to examine is whether its intervention is required for implementing orders under the Criminal Procedure Code or for prevention of abuse of process, or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. A chargesheet filed at the dictate of somebody other than the police would amount abuse of the process of law and hence the High Court ought to have exercised its inherent powers under Section 482 to the extent of the abuse. There is no requirement that the chargesheet has to be quashed as a whole and not in part. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. The Supplementary Report filed by the Police, at the direction of the Commission, is quashed.”

¶61

1 2

¶62

Thus, the Hon’ble Supreme Court categorically

¶63

held that the chargesheet can be quashed in part in exercising the inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In view of the settled position of law on the subject, I find that invoking of Section 3 of SC/ST Act against the petitioner is not sustainable, as it amount to abuse of process of law. Hence, the said part of the chargesheet filed for the offences punishable under Sections 3 (1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (v-a) of the SC/ST Act against the petitioner / accused No.2 is to be quashed. However, the chargesheet filed against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC shall proceed in accordance with law. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

¶64

ORDER

¶65

The petition is partly allowed.

¶66

The proceedings initiated against the petitioner /

¶67

accused No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections

¶68

1 3

¶69

3(1) (r), 3 (1) (s) and 3 (2) (v-a) of the SC/ST Act is quashed. However , the criminal proceedings against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC shall proceed in accordance with law.

¶70

The Investigating Officer is directed to file fresh chargesheet against petitioner/accused No.2 restricting it to Sections 504 and 506 of IPC.

¶71

Sd/JUDGE

¶72

RSP

Smt.Sampati Bai v. the State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Sampati Bai v. the State and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mirza Mohd Abdulla Baig @ Faheem Baig Vs the State of Karnataka

Gollalappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Abdul Gani Vs the State

Basavaraj S/O Srinivas Kandenpally Vs the State

B.P. Gangahanumaiah S/O Papaiah Vs Durga Nagendra Nekkanti S/O N. Venkatanarayana

Raju @ Rajkumar Vs the State of Karnataka