High Court allowed criminal petition seeking quash of charge sheet under SC/ST Atrocities Act. Court held no intent to insult based on caste was established; proceedings were abuse of court process and quashed.
Impugned order taking cognizance of offence under SC/ST Act dated 02.12.2017 is set aside and proceedings against petitioner are quashed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 08TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.3490 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
Sri Pattabhiraman, S/o Rama Subramanian, Aged about 65 years, Former Manager, Punjab National Bank, Court Premises, Chamarajapuram, Mysuru City, Mysuru.
Since retired, presently R/at No.3/667, Abhimani Nagar, N.S.Nagar Extension Old Karur Road, Dindigal Tamilnadu-624001. (By Sri C.R.Gopalaswamy, Advocate)
…Petitioner
AND:
:: 2 ::
R/at No.1367, 4th Cross, Srirampuram 2nd Stage, Mysuru City, Mysuru
…Respondents (By Sri Rohith B.J., HCGP for R1; R2 - served)
This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., praying to quash the charge sheet filed by the respondent Police against the petitioner/accused under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of SC/ST Tribe Act, pending on the file of the VI Additional District and Special Judge at Mysuru in Special Case No.522/2017 (arising out of Cr.No.60/2016).
This Criminal Petition coming on for admission this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
Heard Sri C.R.Gopalaswamy, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State. RespondentNo.2 has been served with notice, but he has not appeared before the Court either personally or through an Advocate.
:: 3 ::
District Judge and Special Judge, Mysuru, has sought quashing of the said proceedings and also the order dated 02.12.2017, taking cognizance of the offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (‘SC/ST Act’ for short), against him.
:: 4 ::
that the RTO officers did not give him the documents of the car, rather, they sent the documents to the dealer from whom the second respondent purchased the car. Therefore, the second respondent approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mysuru, for obtaining the documents from the dealer. Said Forum rejected the second respondent’s complaint. He challenged that order by filing an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bengaluru. In the meantime, it appears that the second respondent became a defaulter and therefore the Bank instituted a suit against him by filing a suit, O.S.No.769/2015. The second respondent had stated in his report that the petitioner assured him of settling the matter, but he did not take any action. The specific allegation is that on 16.07.2016, the second respondent and his wife came to the Court premises at about 10.25am. The petitioner also came to the bank
:: 5 ::
and at that time, the second respondent met and asked him as to why he did not take any action in settling the said claim. It is stated that, at that time, the petitioner said that he should not have sanctioned the loan to Advocates like him and to the police. So in this regard FIR came to be registered and ofcourse, now charge sheet is also filed.
investigating officer has examined, have given statements that in the background of the loan transaction, the petitioner used certain words touching the name of the caste of the second respondent. But if the FIR as a whole is read, it becomes clear that the second respondent having obtained loan from the Punjab National Bank, became a defaulter. If RTO officers did not hand over the documents of the car to the second respondent, the petitioner’s role in that is not
:: 6 ::
forthcoming. The petitioner being the bank
Manager, is only concerned with the recovery of the loan amount. The Bank also instituted a suit against the second respondent for recovery of the loan amount. Therefore, if the petitioner being a Bank Manager takes steps according to law to recover the loan amount, it cannot be said that he had any intention to insult the second respondent just because he belongs to scheduled caste.
stated about the incident dated 16.07.2016, even if it is assumed to be true, does not indicate the intention on the part of the petitioner to insult or humiliate the second respondent in the name of his caste. Second respondent has not stated that because of something stated by the petitioner, he was insulted and humiliated at that time. It can be said that just because the second respondent belongs to scheduled caste, he might have
:: 7 ::
misused his caste factor to lodge a false complaint against the petitioner. Merely because the charge sheet is filed, it cannot be said that the materials collected by the investigating officer are trust worthy. Absolutely an offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Act, in respect of which charge sheet has been filed, has not been made out. Therefore, if the petitioner is made to face trial for the offence under the Atrocities Act, it is nothing but abuse of process of Court. In this view, petition deserves to be allowed. Hence the following:
ORDER
Petition is allowed.
Order passed by the learned VI Additional District Judge and Special Judge, Mysuru, dated 02.12.2017, taking cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the
:: 8 ::
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the petitioner in Spl.C.No.522/2017 is setaside. Consequently, proceedings against the petitioner in the said case are quashed.
Sd/JUDGE
Kmv/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether an offence under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST Atrocities Act was made out against the petitioner banker manager.
Whether proceeding against the petitioner is an abuse of the process of the Court.
Whether the charge sheet filed warrants quashing of proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Pattabhiraman
State of Karnataka
Sri Jayasundhar K.
SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
