Partly allowed

Sri Machimada Gini v. the State by

Karnataka HC17 Mar 2021CRL.P/801/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal petition partially, quashing the proceedings under the SC and ST (POA) Act due to lack of specific ingredients regarding caste humiliation. Proceedings under IPC sections were continued and transferred.

What did the court decide?

Quashed proceedings under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC/ST (POA) Act; continued proceedings under Sections 504, 323, 324 of IPC.

Sri Machimada Gini Vs the State by — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 17^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.801 OF 2021

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

1 . SRI MACHIMADA GINI S/O LATE AIYAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶9

2 . SMT. MACHIMADA VANI W/O MACHIMADA GINI, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶10

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT BALYAMANDOOR VILLAGE VIRAJPET TALUK – 571 216 KODAGU DISTRICT. ..PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI MOHANA CHANDRA P, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . THE STATE BY SRIMANGALA POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶14

2 . SMT.PANIYERAVARA MUTHI W/O MANJU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶15

¶16

R/AT BALYAMANDOOR VILLAGE, SRIMANGALA, VIRAJPET TALUK – 571 216.

¶17

..RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI MAHESH SHETTY, HCGP FOR R1 R-2 IS SERVED)

¶19

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 19.08.2020 PASSED BY THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU (SITTING AT VIRAJPETE) TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504, 323, 324 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF SC/ST(POA) ACT REGISTERING THE CASE AS SPL. CASE No.5033/2020 AND ISSUING PROCESS TO THE PETITIONERS IN PURSUANCE OF CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE SRIMANGALA POLICE IN CR.No.40/2020 OF SRIMANGALA POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504, 323, 324 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT AGAINST THE PETITIONERS.

¶20

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

¶21

O R D E R

¶22

This petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 praying this Court to quash the impugned order dated 19.08.2020 passed by the court of II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Kodagu (sitting at Virajpete), taking

¶23

¶24

cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324 r/w 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Sections 3(1)(r) and Section 3(1)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act.

¶25

Factual matrix of the case is that respondent No.2 herein lodged complaint with the police making allegation that on 27.05.2020 at 4.30 P.M. CW-1 and CW-2 went to the coffee estate of their owner along with complainant’s brother son and her husband to pick the firewood. When CW-1 and CW-4 cutting the firewood, CWs2 and 3 were going to pick jackfruit. At that time petitioners who belonged to Kodava community came and abused CW-2 and CW-3 and also abusing their caste though they know that they belonged to Schedule Tribe. Thereafter petitioner No.1 assaulted CW-2 on his right thigh with club and assaulted CW-3 on his leg. Petitioner No.2 slapped CW-2 and CW-3 with her hand. Hence based on the

¶26

¶27

complaint police have registered a case for the above offences.

¶28

Counsel appearing for the petitioner

¶29

vehemently contended that in view of the special enactment to invoke particularly Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) there must be intention to humiliate that person belongs to that particular community that too in a public place and on perusal of the entire complaint as well as 164 statement no where there are allegations that these petitioners with the said intention to humiliate person belonged to particular community or abused taking their caste name. Only reference to caste was made in the complaint and same is also missing in the 164 statement made by CW-2 and CW-3 before the learned Magistrate. Hence, counsel would vehemently contend that invoking special enactment against these petitioners

¶30

¶31

amounts to an abuse of process. Hence requires interference of this court.

¶32

Per contra, learned HCGP for State submits that there is a reference of caste in the complaint and though CW-2 and CW-3 made the statement before the Magistrate under Section 164 a particular word is not used for abusing or taking caste name. It is a case for trial and hence does not require interference of this court.

¶33

Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and also learned HCGP for State and on perusal of the complaint given by respondent No.2 specific allegations are made with regard to abusing and assault and only reference of caste name was made in the complaint that they belonged to Yerrava community and this incidence taken place inside the

¶34

¶35

coffee estate wherein complainant and other family members were picking firewood and no public and also on perusal of 164 statement made before the Civil Judge(Jr.Dn) and JMFC, Ponnampet except making allegations and abusing and assaulting no averments are made with an intention to humiliate them abusing by taking their caste name.

¶36

Having perused the complaint as well as 164 statement and other charge sheet materials and statement of witnesses the very ingredients of Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC and ST(Prevention of Atrocities) Act are missing and hence taking cognizance for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) is nothing but an abuse of process. Learned District and Sessions Judge failed to take note of the fact that there are no materials to invoke offence under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of

¶37

¶38

the Act. Hence, requires interference of this court to quash the proceedings initiated against the petitioners invoking special enactment under Section 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act. Further taking note of charge sheet material available on record there are materials to invoke Sections 504, 323, 324 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶39

In view of the discussion made above, I proceed to pass the following:

¶40

ORDER

¶41

i) The petition is allowed in part. Taking cognizance against petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act in Crime No.40/2020 is hereby quashed.

¶42

¶43

ii) The proceedings initiated against the petitioners in Crime No.40 of 2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 504, 323, 324 of Indian Penal Code is continued and matter to be transferred to competent jurisdictional court to try in accordance with law.

¶44

Sd/- JUDGE

¶45

SBN

Sri Machimada Gini v. the State by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Machimada Gini v. the State by

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. Srinivas. v Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri K.S. Parveez Vs the State of Karnataka

Ramesh R, Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Shekhar G.M. Vs Shreyas Hind Chit India Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. Lala Naveen Kumar Vs State of Karnataka

Dr Raghavendra K Vs State by Bangalore District Women'S Police Station