Partly allowed

Syed Navaz v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Aug 2021CRL.P/32/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Karnataka High Court allowed a petition to quash proceedings for caste-atrocity charges under the SC/ST Act regarding a civil property dispute, while remanding IPC assault charges for trial against the petitioners.

What did the court decide?

Charge-sheet proceedings under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act quashed against petitioners; IPC charges remanded to Jurisdictional Magistrate.

Syed Navaz Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.32 OF 2020

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SYED NAVAZ S/O. SYED BAKASH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, PARVATHIPURA, HOSAKOTE TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL-562 114.

¶9

SYED NAVEED S/O. SYED BAKASH, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, PARVATHIPURA, HOSAKOTE TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL - 562 114.

¶10

SYED NASEER S/O. SYED BAKASH, AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, PARVATHIPURA, HOSAKOTE TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL - 562 114.

¶11

... PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI TEJAS N., ADVOCATE)

¶13

¶14

AND

¶15

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY HOSAKOTE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU RURAL - 562 114, (REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR).

¶16

MUNIKRISHNAPPA L.R. S/O. LATE M. RAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NEAR ANJANEYA TEMPLE, PARVATHIPURA, HOSAKOTE TOWN, BENGALURU RURAL - 562 114.

¶17

...RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI B.J. ROHITH, HCGP)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN SPECIAL CASE NO.214/2018 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL, FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF THE SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ARTOCITIES) ACT, 1989 AND UNDER SECTIONS 323, 324, 504 AND 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC., WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.10/2018 OF HOSAKOTE POLICE STATION, BENGALURU RURAL.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

This petition is filed by the petitioners-accused Nos.2 to 4 under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the charge-

¶23

sheet filed against them by the Hosakote Police in Crime No.10/2018 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian

¶24

¶25

Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short ‘SC/ST (POA) Act’) pending on the file of II Additional District and Sessions Court, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore.

¶26

Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1-State. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 not present.

¶27

The case of the prosecution is that respondent No.2-Munikrishnappa L.R., filed a complaint on 7.1.2018 alleging that the complainant and accused No.1 are neighbors and the house of the complainant is behind the house of accused No.1. There is common passage between both the houses. On 07.01.2018, when the complainant was not in the house, accused No.1 has indulge in repairing drainage pipe in the said passage which comes to

¶28

an extent of 3 feet. At about 3.30 p.m., when the complainant questioned accused No.1 about the repairs

¶29

¶30

carried out, for that, accused No.1 said that 3 feet area belongs to him and abused the complainant in a filthy language and also took the name of his caste and threatened with dire consequences. Then accused No.1 called his sons, the present petitioners and even the complainant’s son also came and intervened. At that time, exchange of words took place and scuffle started between both the families. Accused person assaulted the complainant and his son and also threatened to do away the life. Hence, the complainant lodged a complaint. The complainant also stated that one Chitra-CW.3 and Shanthamma-C.W.4 were the eye-witness to the incident who pacified the quarrel. After registering a case and completion of investigation, the Police have filed a chargesheet for the above said offences including the offence punishable under Special Act against SC/ST. The petitioners being accused Nos.2 to 4 who are the sons of accused No.1 have filed this petition by taking cognizance against them for SC/ST (POA) Act. The main allegation is only against accused No.1-the father of these petitioners

¶31

¶32

and presently he is no more and died during the corona period on 06.10.2020. Hence, the charges against accused No.1 is abated.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioners seriously contended that on looking to the statement of the eyewitnesses including the complaint and further statement of the complainant, no where it is stated that these petitioners were also abused the complainant by taking the name of the caste in the public view and abusing in filthy language in order to attract Sections 3(r) and (s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The only allegation against accused No.1 is that he has abused the complainant in a filthy language by taking the name of his caste and there is no averment made against these petitioners. Therefore, prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings against these petitioners in respect of the offence under the provisions of the SC/ST (POA) Act.

¶34

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader though objected the petition but, admits that

¶35

¶36

accused Nos.2 to 4 were not present with accused No.1 who abused in filthy language by taking the name of the caste of the complainant and also the eye-witnesses have not at all stated that these petitioners are also joined with accused No.1 for abusing in filthy language by taking the caste. However, learned High Court Government Pleader submits that accused Nos.2 to 4 have assaulted the complainant and also threatened with dire consequences and also assaulted with stone which attracts Sections 323, 324 and 506 of IPC.

¶37

Learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another reported in (2020) 10 SCC 710 .

¶38

Having heard the arguments and perused the records, of course, the complainant filed a complaint to the police on 07.01.2018 alleging that when the complainant questioned accused No.1 for repairing drainage pipe in his area and also on the disputed land pending in

¶39

¶40

O.S.No.509/2014. When the complainant questioned the same, accused No.1 is said to have abused him in a filthy language by taking out the name of his caste and on perusal of the statement of the complainant as well as the further statement of the complainant and statements of CWs.2 to 5 who are the eye-witnesses to the incident, are all given statement that accused No.1 abused the complainant in filthy language by taking the name of the caste but it is not clearly stated that who actually made use of caste in order to insult the complainant in order to attract provisions of Section 3(1)(r) and3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. Merely the accused No.1 has taken up the name of the caste of the complainant that cannot be considered that accused person had an intention to insult the members of the SC/ST in the public view. Absolutely, there is no ingredients made out in any of the statement of the complainant or in the statement of witnesses which attracts Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act and also several cases are pending between the parties. The complainant has filed O.S.No.509/2014

¶41

¶42

through his wife and it is pending for consideration. There is no stay for interim order and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma stated supra has held at paragraph Nos. 20, 21, 22 and 23 as under:

¶43

“20. Later, while examining the constitutionality of the provisions of the amending Act (Central Act 27 of 2018), this Court in a judgment reported as Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India held that proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code. It was held as under: (SCC p. 751, para 12)

¶44

“12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power under Section 482 Cr.P.C for quashing the cases to prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameters, as already observed while deciding the review petitions. The legal position is clear, and no argument to the contrary has been raised.”

¶45

21. In Gorige Pentaiah, one of the arguments raised was non-disclosure of the caste of the

¶46

¶47

accused but the facts were almost similar as there was civil dispute between parties pending and the allegation was that the accused has called abuses in the name of the caste of the victim. The High Court herein has misread the judgment of this Court in Ashabai Machindra Adhagale as it was not a case about the caste of the victim but the fact that the accused was belonging to upper caste was not mentioned in the FIR. The High Court of Bombay had quashed the proceedings for the reason that the caste of the accused was not mentioned in the FIR, therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(xi) of the Act is not made out. In an appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court, this Court held that this will be the matter of investigation as to whether the accused either belongs to or does not belong to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. Therefore, the High Court erred in law to dismiss the quashing petition relying upon later larger Bench judgment.

¶48

22. The appellant had sought quashing of the charge-sheet on the ground that the allegation does not make out an offence under the Act

¶49

10

¶50

against the appellant merely because respondent No.2 was a Scheduled Caste since the property dispute was not on account of the fact that respondent No.2 was a Scheduled Caste. The property disputes between a vulnerable section of the society and a person of upper caste will not disclose any offence under the Act unless, the allegations are on account of the victim being a Scheduled Caste. Still further, the finding that the appellant was aware of the caste of the informant is wholly inconsequential as the knowledge does not bar, any person to protect his rights by way of a procedure established by law.

¶51

23. This Court in a judgment reported as Ishwar Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. held that there is no prohibition under the law for quashing the charge-sheet in part. In a petition filed under Section 482 of the Code, the High Court is required to examine as to whether its intervention is required for prevention of abuse of process of law or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The Court held as under: “9. Having regard to the settled legal position on external interference in investigation and

¶52

11

¶53

the specific facts of this case, we are of the view that the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C to secure the ends of justice. There is no prohibition under law for quashing a charge-sheet 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 charge-sheet filed at the dictate of somebody other than the police would amount to 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 charge-sheet 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.”

¶54

¶55

On perusal of the first information statement and the further statement of the complainant, the averments made in the charge-sheet also does not reveal any ingredient to attract Sections 3(1)(r) or 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act. The accused must abuse or insult the members of SC/ST knowingly about the caste with an intention to insult them. But in this case, the averments made in the complaint goes to show that the accused was laying some pipe line for drainage in the disputed property, the complainant himself approached the accused and questioned and at that time, the accused No.1 abused him in a filthy language. There is no detail as to what word uttered or has been used in order to insult the members of the SC/ST. Therefore, in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, I am of the view that there is no ingredient to attract the provisions of Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act in order to try the case by the Special Court against deceased-accused No.1 or against these petitioners. Absolutely there is no evidence

¶56

¶57

to show that these petitioners are not at all present while complainant and accused No.1 were quarreling but they came later and assaulted the complainant which attracts only Sections 323, 324, 504 and 506 of IPC against accused No.1. Therefore, I am of the view that the chargesheet against the petitioners in respect of the offences under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC/ST (POA) Act pending in Special Case No.214/2018 on the file of the II Additional District Judge, Bangaluru Rural is required to be quashed.

¶58