Allowed

Mr. Bachegowda H M v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Jun 2022CRL.P/1164/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed criminal proceedings under Cr.P.C. 482 for offences including affray, criminal intimidation, and hate speech under SC/ST Act. The court held that proceedings would be an abuse of process as the underlying civil dispute was settled and there was no obligation to pay balance consideration.

What did the court decide?

The impugned proceedings in SPl.Case No.513/2017 pending on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is hereby quashed.

Mr. Bachegowda H M Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1164 OF 2019

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

1 . MR. BACHEGOWDA H M

¶9

S/O LATE MUNEGOWDA

¶10

AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶11

2 . MR NAVEEN

¶12

S/O BACHEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS

¶13

BOTH ARE R/AT HARALURU VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI HBLI, HOSAKOTE TALUK

¶14

BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562114

¶15

...PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR K., ADVOCATE)

¶17

AND :

¶18

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶19

BY THE HOSKOTE POLICE STATION, REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT BUILDING, KARNATAKA-560001

¶20

2 . MR DODDAVENKATAPPA S/O LATE CHIKKATHIMMARAYAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,

¶21

¶22

R/AT JADIGENAHALLI VILLAGE JADIGENAHALLI POST, HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL-562114

¶23

...RESPONDENTS

¶24

(BY SRI. SRI. S. VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. H. MANJUNATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶25

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE CHARGE SHEET IN SPL.C.NO.513/2017 ARISED OUT OF CR.NO.409/2017 ON THE FILE OF HOSAKOTE POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 143, 147, 323, 504 AND 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(10) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, BENGALURU.

¶26

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATION THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

Charge sheet is filed against accused Nos.1 and 2 alleging that when the accused and complainant were talking to each other, the second respondentcomplainant requested accused No.1 to pay the balance sale consideration, at that point of time, accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 picked up quarrel with the second respondent-complainant stating that they are

¶29

¶30

not due to pay any amount and abused him with filthy language by referring to his Caste and assaulted him with their hands and torn the shirt. Thereafter, the second respondent-complainant informed his children about the incident and when C.W-2 and C.W-3 children of the second respondent-complainant came to the spot asking the accused as to why they assaulted his father, at that point of time, accused Nos.1, 2 and 3 by referring to Caste of the C.W.1 to 3 abused them in filthy language and accused No.1 assaulted C.W-1 on his face and accused Nos.4 and 5 caught hold of C.W-2. Accused Nos.2 and 3 assaulted C.W-1 with their hands and legs causing bleeding injuries and when C.W.3 came to his rescue, accused No.1 assaulted him with his hands and all the accused abused the C.Ws.-1, 2 and 3 in filthy language by referring to their caste and also threatened them with dire consequences.

¶31

¶32

The Learned Sessions Court took

¶33

cognizance of the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 325, 504, 506 read with 149 of IPC and Section 3(1) (10) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. Taking exception of the same, this petition is filed.

¶34

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties.

¶35

An agreement of sale was executed by

¶36

respondent No.2 in favour of accused No.1 agreeing to sell the subject property for a sum of Rs.48,05,000/-. Thereafter, supplementary agreement of sale was executed between the parties on 13.11.2013 whereby the accused No.1 agreed to pay Rs.55,00,000/- as sale consideration to the second respondent and thereafter the second respondent so as to circumvent the agreement of sale executed in favour of accused

¶37

¶38

No.1 executed a registered gift deed in favour of his daughter. The accused No.1 filed a suit for specific performance in O.S.No.1076/2014 which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn in the year 2015.

¶39

Thereafter, the second respondent and his daughter Smt.J.D.Lavanya sold the subject property in favour of S. Venkatesh and his wife Niranjani by executing a registered sale deed on 06.01.2017. Such being the case, the second respondent lodged FIR on 29.09.2017 alleging that the accused assaulted C.Ws and also them abused in filthy language when C.W-1 requested with the accused No.1 to pay the balance sale consideration. The second respondent and his daughter having sold the subject property in favour of one Sri.S.Venkatesh and his wife Smt.Niranjani, the accused No.1 was not liable to pay balance sale consideration as specified in the agreement of sale

¶40

¶41

which was executed in his favour, since the suit filed by him for specific performance of agreement was withdrawn. The said suit was dismissed on compromise petition filed by accused No.1 and respondent No.2, where they have specifically admitted that they have no claim against each other. Hence, it is implied that the respondent No.2 with an intention to make unlawful gain has lodged FIR against accused after entering into compromise with accused No.1.

¶42

In the absence of any obligation on the part of accused No.1 to pay balance sale consideration, the allegations made in the FIR are imaginary and false so as to pressurize the accused to pay the amount which they are not liable to pay. The second respondent suppressing all material fact lodged FIR and police in the absence of the said

¶43

¶44

material fact has filed charge sheet against accused which is without any substance.

¶45

In view of the preceding analysis, I am of the view, that the continuation of criminal proceedings against petitioners-accused will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i. Criminal petition is allowed.

¶48

ii. The impugned proceedings in SPl.Case

¶49

No.513/2017 pending on the file of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru is hereby quashed.

¶50

Sd/JUDGE

¶51

RKA

Mr. Bachegowda H M v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Bachegowda H M 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. N Velu Vs J Hemanth Krishna

Prajwal P Shenava Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Yousuff Shariff @ D Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Gowramma Vs State of Karnataka

Mr P S Ayub @ Bomanahalli Babu Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Amit Rathore Vs Ms. Kiranashree Electricals