Allowed

Smt. Thamaraiselvi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC2 Aug 2021CRL.P/2264/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, school staff, sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Sections 324, 506 IPC and SC/ST Act. Court found incident arose from educational punishment and domestic dispute, lacking caste insult or malicious threat. Proceedings quashed.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.193/2020 pending before II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru are hereby quashed.

Smt. Thamaraiselvi Vs the State of Karnataka — Cheating and Forgery | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 02^ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.2264 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

Smt. Thamaraiselvi, Aged about 29 years, W/o Subramanyam, Teacher, Prathiksha International School, R/at No.105, Bethanagere Road, Dasanapura Hobli, Bengaluru North, Bengaluru Rural-562123.

¶9

Shivashankar S., S/o Siddappa, Aged about 40 years, Administrator & Vice President, Prathiksha International School, R/at No.198, Hippe Anjaneyaswamy Temple Layout, Adepete, Nelamangala Town, Bengaluru Rural - 562123.

¶10

Krishnamuni M.C., S/o Chikkanna, Aged about 41 years, Secretary,

¶11

¶12

Pratiksha International School, R/at Moodalapalya, Mahadevapura Post, Kasaba Hobli, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru Rural-562123.

¶13

…Petitioners

¶14

(By Sri Hemanth Kumar K., Advocate) AND

¶15

The State of Karnataka by Nelamangala Rural Police Station, Rep. by State Public Prosecutor, High Court Complex, Bengaluru-560001.

¶16

Anjanamurthy B., S/o. Bylappa, Aged about 34 years, Dasanapura Hobli, Gopalpura, Benglauru North, Bengaluru Rural-562123.

¶17

…Respondents

¶18

(By Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP for R1, R2 - served)

¶19

This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.193/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, filed by

¶20

¶21

Nelamangala Rural police now pending on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge at Bengaluru.

¶22

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

¶23

ORDER

¶24

This is a petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to quash the proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.193/2020 pending on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

¶25

Heard the petitioners’ counsel and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. Respondent No.2 is served. He has neither entered appearance in person nor through an Advocate.

¶26

The petitioners have been prosecuted in relation to offences punishable under Sections 324 and 506 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act read

¶27

¶28

with Section 34 of IPC. The second respondent registered an FIR with the police on 20.12.2019 in regard to an incident said to have taken place on 13.12.2019. The first petitioner is the teacher, second petitioner is the Administrator and vice-president and third petitioner is the Secretary of an educational institution called Prathiksha International School, Moodalapalya, Nelamangala Taluk, Bengaluru.

¶29

The second respondent’s son, namely, Master A.Siddarth @ A.Harisurya, aged 4 years is a student in the said school. The contents of the FIR show that the second respondent had earlier registered an FIR against the petitioners on 04.09.2019 in the first respondentpolice station, in relation to his being abused in the name of caste, but the police did not take any action. It is further stated that there exists a matrimonial dispute between him and his wife, Smt. Veena and that the child Master A.Siddarth @ A.Harisurya is in the custody of the

¶30

¶31

mother. It appears that the second respondent had been given visitation right by the Court and that the wife and her parents were not allowing him to visit the child and in this regard he had made complaints to the police. Because he was not allowed to visit the child, he used to go to school to meet the child. On 13.12.2019, when he went to the school, he saw his son being made to stand on the bench. A teacher by name Selvi, i.e., the first petitioner was asking the child about his caste and then caned on his forehand. Immediately the second respondent took the child with him and met petitioners 2 and 3 to question as to why his child was unnecessarily being punished. They did not take any action. It is further alleged that the petitioners did not provide treatment to the child and sent him to the house in the school van and tried to hush up the entire matter. It is also alleged that the petitioners threatened the second respondent with dire consequences if he would take any

¶32

¶33

action. Therefore on 20.12.2019 he went to the police station and lodged an FIR. The police held investigation and filed charge sheet.

¶34

Learned HCGP submits that the FIR clearly discloses that the child of the second respondent was subjected to insult in the class room in the name of his caste and it is fortified by the further statement of the second respondent. He also submits that the CWs.7, 8, 10, 11, 12 and 13 have also given statements that an offence of this nature has taken place. Therefore there is no scope for exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

¶35

Now if the FIR and the charge sheet are read,

¶36

what becomes very clear is that basically there exists a dispute between the husband and wife. The child is in the custody of the mother and that the second respondent used to go to school to meet his child. The allegation that on 13.12.2019, the concerned teacher

¶37

¶38

was asking the child to reveal his caste appears to be an after thought, because, as the second respondent himself has stated in the FIR, he did not take immediate action on 13.12.2019, rather he waited till 20.12.2019 to go to police station for lodging the FIR.

¶39

Reason for the delay to go to police station is not forthcoming. During investigation, statement of the child was recorded. This statement shows that because the child had not done homework, the teacher asked the child to stand on the bench and punished him. The statements of other witnesses also do not indicate that the second respondent was actually insulted in the name of his caste when he entered the chambers of petitioners

¶40

2 and 3 to question as to why his son was being punished. Actually, the witnesses, namely, Smt. Veena and Shivagangamma have clearly stated as to what happened in the chamber. Even the statement of another witness, namely, Mangalamma also shows that

¶41

¶42

the child was punished because he had not done the homework. In this view, inference can be drawn is that the investigating officer, during investigation did not apply his mind to ascertain whether any offence that can be within the purview of Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act had been committed or not. Even in the FIR, there are no allegations that the petitioners had insulted in the name of his caste. The only allegation found is that on 13.12.2019, the teacher asked his son to reveal his caste. The veracity in this allegation is to be doubted. Moreover to this effect, the child has not given any statement. For this reason, offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act invoked in the charge sheet cannot be sustained.

¶43

Then there remains the other offence under

¶44

Sections 324 and 506 of IPC. If the statements of the child and other two witnesses are referred to, it may be stated that subjecting a child to punishment falls within

¶45

¶46

the scope of Section 89 of IPC. It was with a good intention to see that the child will do the homework. If the child is subjected to reasonable punishment, it does not constitute an offence and therefore Section 324 of IPC cannot be invoked. With regard to Section 506 of IPC, regarding threat by the petitioners to the second respondent, because there is delay in lodging the complaint, said offence also cannot be sustained. The investigating officer ought to have applied his mind before filing the charge sheet. The evidence collected by him does not indicate any offence having taken place. The charge sheet should not have been filed. Therefore this is a fit case to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the proceedings. Hence the following:

ORDER

Petition is allowed.

Proceedings in Spl.C.C.No.193/2020 pending on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru are hereby quashed.

¶51

Sd/JUDGE

¶52

Kmv/-

Smt. Thamaraiselvi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Thamaraiselvi 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

Sri Rudresh Mallikarjun Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Lokesha M K Vs State of Karnataka

Suhail @ Noor Mohammed Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. S. N. Vinoda Vs Naveen Kumar. K

Sri Chidambara Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Lokesh K E Vs Smt Madhu