Allowed

Ramesh N @ Bbmp Ramesh v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC30 Sept 2021CRL.P/5164/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the proceedings in a criminal case under the SC/ST Act and IPC cited as an abuse of process of law. The court held that the specific provision under which the FIR was registered had been deleted at the time of registration, rendering the charge unsustainable. Additionally, the court found that the factual allegations regarding the nature of interaction and public place did n

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Crime No.155/2017 pending before the Special Court, Bangalore stands quashed qua the petitioners.

Ramesh N @ Bbmp Ramesh Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 30^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.5164/2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

RAMESH N @ BBMP RAMESH, S/O K.NANJAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, FLAT NO.4, VIJAY SRISHTI, 6TH MAIN, POSTAL COLONY, SANJAY NAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 094.

¶9

RAVI KUMAR N K @ RTI RAVI, S/O LATE KARIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT NO.170, NEAR NAGASHETTY HALLI BUS STOP, SANJAY NAGARA, BANGALORE - 560 094.

¶10

SAI DATA, S/O LATE GANAPATHI BHAT, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.37, ASHOK NAGAR, BANASHANKARI 1ST STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 050.

¶11

SUBHASH, S/O KAVERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.476, D.RAJ GOPAL ROAD,

¶12

¶13

NAGASHETTYHALLI, BANGALORE - 560 094.

¶14

... PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI.HASHMATH PASHA, SENIOR ADVOCATE; (VIDEO CONFERENCING))

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY SANJAY NAGARA POLICE, BANGALORE - 560 094.

¶18

(REPRESENTED BY LEARNED STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE.

¶19

VISHWANATH KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.1, 3RD FLOOR, S.L.N.EMERALD BUILDING, BASAPPA LAYOUT, SANJAY NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 094.

¶20

... RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B. G., HCGP FOR R-1 (PHYSICAL HEARING); R2 SERVED)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CR.NO.155/2017 OF SANJAYNAGAR P.S., WHICH IS PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE II ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND S.J., AND SPL. COURT FOR SC/ST (POA) ACT (CCH-17), BANGALORE FOR THE OFFENCE U/S 3(15) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, AND ALSO U/S 511, 506, 34, 504, 384 OF IPC AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW.

¶23

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

¶24

¶25

ORDER

¶26

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question the proceedings in Crime No.155/2017 pending before the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Court (CCH-17), Bangalore City alleging the offences under the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Act' for short) read with the offence under the Indian Penal Code, 1860 ('IPC' for short).

¶27

Heard Sri. Hashmath Pasha, learned Senior counsel appearing for the petitioners and Smt. Namitha Mahesh B. G., learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 - State. Respondent No.2 - complainant though is served has remained unrepresented before this Court.

¶28

Brief facts leading to the filing of present

¶29

petition as borne out from the pleadings are as follows:

¶30

¶31

Petitioner Nos.1 to 4 are accused Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6. Respondent No.2 is the complainant. Respondent No.2 - complainant is the proprietor of Aditi

¶32

constructions, who is a developer of lands and in the business of construction of buildings on joint venture basis. The proprietary concern enters into a joint venture agreement with the National Technology Institution Society ('the Society' for short) in the month of July, 2015 in respect of land in Survey No.71/3 to an extent of 32 guntas in Nagashettihalli, Bengaluru. When respondent No.2 - complainant applied for change of khata in his name, the petitioners and two others submitted petitions raising objections for change of khata in favour of respondent No.2 - complainant on the allegations narrated in the complaint.

¶33

It is after such objection, respondent No.2 - complainant registers a complaint against the petitioners on 13.06.2017 alleging that when

¶34

¶35

respondent No.2 - complainant was in his office, the petitioners and two other accused enter his office and ask ransom of Rs.1 crore to compromise the dispute with regard to the land. It is also alleged that the petitioners threatened respondent No.2 - complainant with dire consequences including the burning of his office above all respondent No.2 - complainant alleges that the accused hurled abuses against the complainant taking the name of his caste with regard to his caste.

¶36

It is not in dispute that the complaint results in registration of an FIR against the petitioners alleging the offences in terms of Section 3(15) of the Act and offences punishable under Sections 511, 506, 504 and 384 of IPC. It is at that juncture, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court in the present petition. The petition being entertained, an interim order of stay of further proceedings is granted and the said order is in operation even as on date.

¶37

¶38

Learned Senior counsel, Sri. Hashmath Pasha appearing for the petitioners would submit that the allegations in the complaint would not constitute an offence as obtaining under the Act nor the offences under IPC as is alleged.

¶39

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader would seek to justify the initiation of proceedings and its continuation on the ground that the entire allegations would constitute an offence under Section 3(15) of the Act and would submit that it is a matter of trial as offences under Sections 504, 506, 511 and 384 are also alleged against the petitioners.

¶40

I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and have perused the material on record.

¶41

¶42

9. Since the entire issue springs from the

¶43

complaint, the complaint is germane to be noticed and is extracted for the purpose of quick reference.

¶44

"¸Áé«Ä £Á£ÀÄ M/s: ADITI CONSTRUTIONS JA§ PÀA¥À¤ ºÉÆA¢zÀÄÝ, ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ, 17 ªÀµÀðUÀ½AzÀ ¨sÀÆ«Ä RjÃ¢¸ÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀiÁgÁl ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀlÖqÀ PÀlÄÖªÀ PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É, £Á£ÀÄ zÀ°vÀ ªÀUÀðPÉÌ ¸ÉÃjzÀÄÝ, F £ÁUÀ±ÀnÖ ºÀ½î, PÉ®ªÀÅ UÁæªÀÄ¸ÀÜgÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ £ÁUÀ±ÀnÖ ºÀ½î UÁæªÀÄzÀ ¸ÀªÉð £ÀA. 70/3, gÀ°è 0-32 UÀÄAmÉUÉ d«ÄÃ£À£ÀÄß ¢£ÁAPÀ: 25.01.1975 gÀ°è RjÃ¢¹zÀÄÝ, £Á£ÀÄ eÁ¬ÄAmï ªÉAZÀgÀUÉ ¥ÀqÉzÀÄ dÄ¯ÉÊ 2015 jAzÀ £À£Àß ¸Áé¢ü£ÀPÉÌ ©lÄÖPÉÆnÖgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¢£ÁAPÀ: 24.02.2016 SÁvÁ £ÉÆÃAzÁªÀtÂ ªÀÄDqÀ®Ä ©©JA¦ UÉ NTI ¸ÉÆ¸ÉÊnAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ Cfð ¸À°è¹zÀÝgÀÄ. SÁvÉ Cfð¸À°è¹zÀÝ ªÀÄÄAZÉ¬ÄAzÀ FV£ÀªÀgÉUÀÆ F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼ÁzÀ gÀªÉÄÃ±À @ ©©JA¦ gÀªÉÄÃ±ï Dgï.n.L, gÀ« @ gÀ« PÀÄªÀiÁgÀ, ¥ÀÄlÖ¸Áé«Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ EvÀgÉ PÉ®ªÀÅ UÁæªÀÄ¸ÀÜgÀÄ.

¶45

¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ:28.01.2016, 02.03.2017 ¥ÀvÀæzÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 28.01.2016, 02.03.2017, 11.03.2017, 14.04.2016, 14.04.2016, 12.12.2016, 21.12.2016, 07.02.2017, 01.06.2017 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 12.06.2017 UÀ¼À°è DPÉëÃ¥ÀuÉ ¸À°è¸ÀÄvÁÛ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É C¥À¥ÀæZÁgÀ ¨sÀÆ-PÀ§½zÁgÀgÀÄ, ªÀAZÀPÀ, £ÀPÀ° zÁR¯É ¸ÀÈ¶×¹gÀÄªÀÅzÁV JAzÀÄ °TvÀzÀ°è w½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

¶46

F «µÀAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß ªÀÄÄAzÉ EmÉÆÌAqÀÄ £É£Éß 13.06.2017 ¸ÀAeÉ ¸ÀÄªÀiÁgÀÄ 5.45 UÀAmÉUÉ D¦ü¹UÉ PÉ®ªÀÅ ªÀåQÛUÀ¼À eÉÆåÃvÉ gÀªÉÄÃ±À @ ©©JA¦ gÀªÉÄÃ±ï, gÀ« @ gÀ« Dgï.n.L gÀ« PÀÄªÀiÁgÀ, ¥ÀÄlÖgÁdÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¸ÀÄ¨sÁ±À JA§ÄªÀªÀgÀÄ £À£Àß D¦ü¹UÉ §AzÀÄ 1 PÉÆÃn PÉÆr £ÁªÀÅ ¸Á¬Ä zÀvÀÛ, ²æÃ¤ªÁ¸À J®ègÀÆ ºÀAZÉÆÌÃ½ÛÃ«. E¯ÁèAzÉæ ¤Ã£ÀÄ M§â MqÀØ £À£Àß ªÀÄUÀ, ¤ÃªÉÃ¤zÀÄæ PÀ®Äè ªÀÄtÄÚ ºÉÆgÀÄzÀPÉÌ ¸Àj, ¤Ã£ï SC/ST PÉÃ¸ï ºÁQzÉæ £ÁªÉÃ£ï ºÉzÀæ®è ¤Ã£ï PÁA¥ÀæªÉÄÊ¸ï DzÉæ ¸Àj, E¯Áè CAzÉæ ¤£Àß D¦üÃ¸À£À ¸ÀÄlÖ ºÁPÀvÉÃ« AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ Hj¤AzÀ £ÀªÀÄä KjAiÀiÁ ¥Áæ¥Ànð vÀUÉÆ¼ÉÆzÀPÉÌ £Áªï ©rÛÃªÁ, JµïÖ ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ E°è AiÀiÁ£ÀÄð ©qÉÝ £ÉÆÃqÉÆÌÃAr¢ÝÃ« ¤Ã£ï AiÀiÁªÉÇÃ£ÉÆÃ, MAzÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ zÀÄqÀÄØ PÉÆqÀÄ PÉÃ¸ï K£ï PÀZÀð ªÀiÁr¢ÝAiÀÄ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄ CzÀ£Àß ªÁ¥Á¸ï PÉÆrÛÃ« ¸ÉÆ¸ÉÊn C²é£ï ¹AUï £À£Àß ¥sÉæÃAqï, £Á£ï ªÀiÁqÉÆÌ½ÛÃ¤, Hgï UËqÀæöß ºÉzÀgÁPÉÆÌAqï

¶47

¶48

E°è ¥ÁæeÉPïÖ ªÀiÁqÉÆÃPÉ DUÉÆÃ®è. E£ÀÄß ¸Á«gÀ ¥ÀvÀæ §jÃwÃ«, ¤Ã£ï K£ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÉÆÃPÉ DUÉÆÃ®è, qÉ¥ÀÄån ªÉÄÃAiÀÄgï D£ÀAzï £ÀªÀiïä PÀqÉ MLA £ÁgÁAiÀÄt¸Áé«Ä J®ègÀÄ £ÀªÀÄUÉ ¸À¥ÉÆÃmïð ªÀiÁqÉÆÃzÀÄ, BTV CªÀÅæ £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀgÀ EzÁÝgÉ AiÉÆÃZÉß ªÀiÁr ºÉÃ½ JgÀqï ¢£À mÉÊªÀiï PÉÆrÛÃ¤. EzÉ jÃw ¸ÀvÀvÀ MAzÀÆªÀgÉ ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ £À£Àß £ÉªÀÄä¢£ÉÃ ºÁ¼ÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÀÛ, £À£ÀUÉ ¨ÁèPï ªÉÄÃ¯ï ªÀiÁqÀÄvÀÛ, ºÀvÁÛgÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß §gÉªÀÅzÀÄ, ºÀt ªÀ¸ÀÆ®Ä ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀAZÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÀÛ §AzÀ F ªÀåQÛUÀ½AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ £ÉÆÃªÀÅ GAmÁV PÉÆÃnUÀlÖ¯É ºÀt Gr ºÉzÀgÀÄªÀ ¥Àj¹Üw §A¢zÉ.

¶49

¸Á¬Ä zÀvÀÛ EªÀgÀÄ vÁ£ÀÄ RTI PÁAiÀÄðPÀvÀð£ÉAzÀÄ vÀ£Àß£ÀÄß vÁ£ÀÄ ©A©¹ PÉÆAqÀÄ, ¢£ÁAPÀ 18/05/2017gÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è BDA DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀªÀjUÉ ¥ÀvÀæ§gÉzÀÄ, SÁvÁ ªÀeÁ ªÀiÁrì÷ÛÃ¤ CAvÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁPÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ, £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀUÉÃ¼À®è £ÀªÀÄä ¥ÀgÀªÁVzÀÝgÉÃ PÁ£ÀÆ¤£À ZËPÀnÖ£À°è £ÁªÀÅ SÁvÁ £ÉÆÃAzÁªÀuÉ ªÀiÁrzÁÝgÉ F ªÉQÛUÀ¼ÀAiÀÄ ºÀt ªÀ¸ÀÆ®Ä ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ zÀÆgÀÄzÉÝÃ±À¢AzÀ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ºÁUÀÄ DyðPÀ £ÀµÀÖ ªÀiÁqÀªÀÅªÀ GzÉÝÃ±À¢AzÀ ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ.

¶50

F ²æÃ¤ªÁ¸ï.¹. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ vÁ£ÀÄ eÁUÀÈvÀ ªÀÄvÀzÁgÀgÀ ªÉÃ¢PÉ (jÃ) PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð JA§ ºÉÃ¹gÀ£À°è ¨ÁèPï ªÉÄÃ¯ï, ºÀtªÀ¸ÀÆ°, ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî C¥ÁzÀ£É, ªÀiÁqÀÄvÀÛ £À£ÀßAvÀ JµÀÄÖ ©®ØUÀð¼À §½ ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ªÀiÁrzÀÝgÉÆÃ EAvÀºÀ ªÀ¸ÀÆ®ÄUÁgÀ£À ªÉÄÃ¯É ªÀiÁ£ÀºÁ¤, ¨ÁèPï ªÉÄÃ¯ï, ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQ ºÀt ªÀ¸ÀÆ®Ä ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¸ÀAZÀÄ, DyðPÀ £ÀµÀÖ ¥ÀæPÀgÀt zÁR°¸À¨ÉÃPÀÄ.

¶51

¸Áé«Ä vÀªÀÄä°è «£ÀAw¹ PÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀÅzÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ F ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ J¯Áè ªÉQÛUÀ¼ÀÄ MAzÀÄ UÀÄA¥ÀÄ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ºÀt ªÀ¸ÀÆ° ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä, E®è ¸À®èzÀ ¸ÀAZÀÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄvÀÛ PÀ¼ÉzÀ MAzÀÆªÀgÉ ªÀµÀð¢AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¨Á¬ÄUÉ §AzÀAvÉ ¨ÉÊzÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ zÀ°vÀ JAzÀÄ CªÀªÀiÁ£À ªÀiÁqÀÄvÀÛ ¥Áæt ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÁÝgÉ, zÀAiÀÄ«lÄÖ F ªÉQÛUÀ½AzÀ £À£Àß£ÀÄ gÀQë¹, EªÀgÀÄUÀ¼À ªÉÄÃ¯É, eÁw¤AzÀ£É, ¨ÁèPÉäöÊ°AUï, £À£Àß PÀA¥À¤AiÀiÁ ºÉ¸ÀgÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄ§ð¼ÀPÉ ªÀiÁr DyðPÀ £ÀµÀÖ ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ, £À£Àß£ÀÄ CªÁZÀå±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¤A¢¹gÀªÀÅzÀÄ, RTI PÁAiÀÄðPÀvÀðgÉAzÀÄ ºÉÃ½ ºÀtªÀ¸ÀÆ®Ä ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀªÀgÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É

¶52

¶53

PÀpt ¥ÀæPÀgÀt, EªÀgÉ®ègÀ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¸ÀÆPÀÛªÁzÀ ¥ÀæPÀgÀtzÁR°¹PÉÆAqÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ jÃwAiÀÄ°è PÀæªÀÄ dgÀÄV¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ PÉÃ½PÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É."

¶54

Based upon the aforesaid complaint, an FIR is registered against the petitioners under Section 3(15) of the Act. The complaint is registered on 15.06.2017, as on the said date, the Act had been amended. There is no Section reading 3(15) in the Act as is alleged in the FIR. Section 3(15) of the Act existed in the Act prior to its amendment. There is no Section 3(15) in the Act after the amendment, which has come into effect from 26.01.2016. The FIR is registered alleging an offence under the provision that stood deleted. Therefore, the offence under Section 3(15) of the Act is a figment of imagination and a reckless registration by the police as it is registered even without looking into the amendment to the Act. Therefore, the offence under Section 3(15) of the Act cannot be driven home for its non-existence on the date on which the FIR is registered.

¶55

¶56

The allegation further is that the abuses were hurdled against respondent No.2 - complainant in the office premises. The statements that are recorded by the police are of the Manager of Aditi Constructions, which is owned by respondent No.2 - complainant and the others, who claimed to have come for an interview at the said place. None of those factors are found in the complaint. Even if it is so, it is inside the house, where there was no public present in terms of the complaint or the abuses being hurdled in a place, where it was of a public view. The Apex Court in its latest judgment in the case of Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarkhand and Another¹ following the judgment in the case of Swaran Singh & Ors. Vs. State through Standing Counsel & Anr which delineated the concept of hurling abuses in a public place or a place with public view has held as follows:

¶57

1 ( 2020) 10 SCC 710

¶58

¶59

12. In the light of the registration of an FIR

¶60

under Section 3(15) of the Act which no longer existed in the statute book as on the date of registration of FIR and Section 3(15) of the Act suffering from blatant non-application of mind on the part of the police for having registered non-existing offence and the judgment of the Apex Court which delineates the concept of hurling abuses in public places. The offence against respondent No.2 - complainant as is alleged cannot even link the incident that is narrated to the ingredients that are necessary to prove the offence under the Act. The aforesaid offence alleged is rendered unsustainable.

¶61

Insofar as the other allegations are concerned, they are offence punishable under Section 511 of IPC, Section 511 of IPC reads as follows:

¶62

" 511. Punishment for attempting to commit offences punishable with imprisonment for life or other imprisonment.—Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code with 2[imprisonment for life] or imprisonment, or to cause such an offence to be committed, and

¶63

¶64

in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with 3[imprisonment of any description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to onehalf of the imprisonment for life or, as the case may be, one- half of the longest term of imprisonment provided for that offence], or with such fine as is provided for the offence, or with both."

¶65

Section 511 of the IPC deals with punishment for attempting to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment of life or other imprisonment.

¶66

The complaint does not even remotely allege

¶67

anything of the kind that is registered in the FIR as there was no life threat or an offence that is committed by the petitioners which would entail them to have imprisonment for life. Therefore, the complaint also doe snot link to the offence alleged. The other offence is one punishable under Section 384of the IPC. Section 384 reads as follows:

¶68

¶69

"384. Punishment for extortion.—Whoever commits extortion shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

¶70

For offence to be punishable under Section 384 of IPC, the ingredients under Section 385 of the IPC will have to be proved. Section 385 of IPC reads as follows:

¶71

" 385. Putting person in fear of injury in order to commit extortion.—Whoever, in order to the committing of extortion, puts any person in fear, or attempts to put any person in fear, of any injury, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both."

¶72

Whoever, in order to commit extortion, puts any person in fear or attempt to put any person in fear or any injury would be punishable under Section 384 of IPC. Here again, the complaint as it narrates, does not link to the offence that is alleged under Section 384 of IPC, for the punishment of extortion as there was no

¶73

¶74

fear that was put, all that the complaint narrates is with regard to caste of respondent No.2 - complainant and not with regard to the extortion or fear being put, if money is not handed over the other offences also would follow suit as the complaint. The entire nucleus of the complaint is about the allegation of hurling abuses. It can at best be an offence under the Act, and not the ones under the IPC.

¶75

Therefore, if the narration in the complaint would not link to any of the offences punishable under the IPC or the provisions under which the FIR is registered, this Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., would step into prevent abuse of process of law or prevent resultant miscarriage of justice.

¶76

It is also germane to notice that a complainant is in the habit of registering complaints using the status of his caste. An identical FIR is

¶77

¶78

registered against others by the respondent No.2 again invoking the provisions of the Act, which is also appended to the criminal petition only to contend that the complainant is in the habit of registering such FIRs using his caste status. Though this would not have any bearing on the observations made hereinabove. It is taken note of only to notice the nature of the complaint and the character of the complainant.

¶79

For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

¶80

ORDER

¶81

i. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶82

ii. The proceedings in Crime No.155/2017 pending before the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Court (CCH17), Bangalore City stands quashed qua the petitioners.

¶83

VBS/SJK

¶84

Sd/JUDGE

Ramesh N @ Bbmp Ramesh v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh N @ Bbmp Ramesh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sivasankaran Krishnan Vs Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike

M/S August Ventures Private Limited Vs the Commissioner

Smt Saraswathi Vs the Commissioner Bangalore Bruhath Mahanagara Palike

Sri Mangalpady Naresh Shenoy Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Manjunath S Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Bharathi Vs the State of Karnataka