Partly allowed

Prashanth Jha v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC3 Mar 2021CRL.P/1/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC, the high court held that since the complaint did not make specific allegations required to invoke Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act, the accused were discharged of those offences. However, other charges were retained as specific allegations existed.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed partly; accused discharged of offences under Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w) of the SC/ST Act via application under Section 227 CrPC.

Prashanth Jha Vs State of Karnataka — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 03^RD DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1/2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

PRASHANTH JHA, S/O MR. KUMAR KANT JHA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.404, ‘A’ BLOCK,, RADIANT LAKE VIEW APARTMENT, KARUNASHRI LAYOUT, MEDAHALLI, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU DISTRICT-560019.

¶9

SARITHA JHA, W/O PRASHANTH JHA, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.404, ‘A’ BLOCK, RADIANT LAKE VIEW APARTMENT, KARUNASHRI LAYOUT, MEDAHALLI, BIDARAHALLI HOBLI, BENGALURU DISTRICT-560019. … PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI LAXMIKANTHA K.B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY AVALAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU DISTRICT-560049. REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARANTAKA, BENGALURU-560001.

¶13

¶14

RADHIKA YAMALA, W/O PRASANNA, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/AT NO.102, ‘A’ BLOCK, RADIANT LAKE VIEW APARTMENT, KARUNASHRI LAYOUT, MEDAHALLI, BENGALURU DISTRICT-560049. … RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R-1; SRI JAGADEESHA B.N., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 03.06.2020 (ANNEXURE-A) IN SPL.C.NO.114/2019 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU AND QUASH THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(1)(R)(S)(W) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.

¶17

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

O R D E R

¶19

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the order dated 03.06.2020 in Spl.C.No.114/2019 passed by the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, rejecting the application filed by accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. and to quash the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (‘SC/ST Act’ for short).

¶20

¶21

The factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 had filed a complaint against the petitioners and based on the complaint, the police have investigated the matter and filed the charge-sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w) of the SC/ST Act. Accused Nos.1 and 2 had filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. to discharge them for the said offences. The learned II Additional District and Sessions Judge rejected the application and hence the present petition is filed before this Court.

¶22

The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners before this Court is that none of the ingredients of the offences made in the complaint attracts the special penal provision. Only during the course of further investigation, further statement of the complainant is recorded, wherein the word is used the complainant belongs to the “Kamma” community and also in the further statement of C.W.1 and C.W.2 and except that, no other witnesses speaks about referring the caste name and making abuse. The learned counsel also restricts his arguments only in respect of penal provisions of

¶23

¶24

special enactment and not pressing the I.A for discharge of other offences.

¶25

The learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that in the complaint an allegation is made that the accused have passed the comments “I screw your life, if you ever talk with me” and also given a warning to kill entire family and abused and assaulted with the car key and caused life threat.

¶26

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

¶27

and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and also on perusal of the complaint, nowhere in the complaint a specific allegation is made with regard to by taking the caste name abused in a public view with an intention to cause humiliation to the complainant. When such ingredients are missing in the complaint, the question of invoking Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act does not arise. However, the learned counsel for respondent No.2 submits that it attracts Section 3(1)(w) of the SC/ST Act. On perusal of the complaint averments, I do not find any such averment in the complaint that knowing fully well that the complainant belongs to a particular SC/ST community, she

¶28

¶29

was subjected to outraging the modesty of a woman. Having perused the complaint, no such allegations are made. However, in order to invoke the special enactment, it appears that the further statement was recorded i.e., only mentioning that she belongs to “Kamma” community and no other materials are available before this Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that it is a fit case to discharge the accused for the offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w) of the SC/ST Act and not in respect of other offences, since in respect of other offences specific allegations are made and statements are also made by the witnesses.

¶30

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶31

following:

¶32

ORDER

¶33

(i) The petition is allowed in part.

¶34

(ii) Consequently, the application filed under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. by the petitioners is partly allowed and the accused are discharged of the offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s)(w) of the SC/ST Act.

¶35

Sd/JUDGE

¶36

Prashanth Jha v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prashanth Jha v. 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

Shadrach Solomon Vs Mahalakshmi Layout Ps

Smt. Malavika Hegde Vs Poornesh K

3M India Limited Vs the Assistant Commissioner of Central Taxes (Legal)

Sri Vijaykumar Vs Smt Sworaba Gopinath

Krishnamurthy Y Vs State by Malur Police

Smt. S G Meghana Vs Sri Amith Telkar