Allowed

M.V. Nethrananda v. State of Karnataka by

Karnataka HC4 Jul 2022CRL.P/1606/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, examining a criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC, quashed the proceedings against petitioners accused of caste abuse. The court held that investigation findings and recorded evidence did not substantiate allegations of caste-based insult under the SC/ST Act or offences under Sections 504 and 506 IPC as no breach of public peace occurred.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition was allowed and the impugned proceedings in Special Case No.38/2019 were quashed.

M.V. Nethrananda Vs State of Karnataka by — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF JULY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No.1606/2019

¶7

BETWEEN :

¶8

M.V.NETHRANANDA S/O MUNISIDDACHARI AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS ACCOUNTS SUPERINTENDENT

¶9

BANGALORE WATER SUPPLY & SEWAGE BOARD, BANGALORE R/AT NO.19/4, NLR MAHALAKSHMI 2^ND MAIN ROAD,

¶10

KEMPANNA & BROTHERS LAYOUT

¶11

SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020

¶12

SMT.SWATHI W/O M.V.NETHRANANDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/AT NO.19/4, NLR MAHALAKSHMI 2^ND MAIN ROAD

¶13

KEMPANNA & BROTHERS LAYOUT SHESHADRIPURAM, BANGALORE – 560 020 ...PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI.HASMATH PASHA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.SUDHIR KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND :

¶16

STATE OF KARNATAKA BY VYALIKAVAL POLICE STATION

¶17

¶18

BANGALORE CITY REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING, BANGALORE

¶19

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF POLICE SESHADRIPURAM SUB-DIVISION REPRESENTED BY SPP HIGH COURT BUILDING BANGALORE CITY – 560 001

¶20

SRI.G.E.MANJUNATH S/O SRI.ESHWARAPPA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.19/37, FLAT NO.102 NLR MAHALAKSHMI, 2^ND MAIN ROAD KEMPANNA & BROTHERS LAYOUT SHESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE – 560 020. ...RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SMT.SHILPA RANI, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.B.PRABHUDEVA, ADVOCATE R-3; SRI.S.VISHWAMURTHY, HCGP FOR R.1 AND 2)

¶22

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING IN SPECIAL CASE NO.38/2019 IN THE COURT OF LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE AT BANGALORE CCH- 71, WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.187/2018 OF VYALIKAVAL POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY 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

FIR was lodged by the third respondent alleging that on 24.10.2018 at about 1.20 p.m the petitionersaccused abused him in filthy language referring to his caste. Police registered the case for the offence punishable under Section 31(1)(s) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 1989 (‘the SC/ST Act’ for short) and Sections 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC.

¶27

The Police after investigation submitted the

¶28

charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(1)(u) of the SC/ST (Prevention of Attrocities) amendment Act, 2015 and Sections 504 and 506 read with 34 of IPC. The learned Sessions Judge after accepting the charge sheet issued process against which the present petition is filed.

¶29

¶30

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the charge sheet material does not disclose the offences alleged against the petitioners and in the absence of any material, the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge taking cognizance of the offence is not sustainable in law.

¶31

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and learned HCGP appearing for the State submit that the charge sheet material clearly disclose the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioners-accused and the same does not warrant any interference and sought for dismissal of the petition.

¶32

I have examined the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.

¶33

The FIR was lodged by respondent No.3 alleging that the petitioner abused him in a filthy

¶34

¶35

language by referring to his caste. During the course of investigation, the transcription of the DVD which was produced by the complainant was viewed by the Investigating Officer and after viewing the same, he opined that the third respondent was not abused by referring to his caste, which clearly indicates that the petitioners have not abused the third respondent in filthy language by referring to his caste.

¶36

The petitioners having not abused the third respondent by referring to his caste, filing of the charge sheet for the offences punishable under the SC/ST Act is without any substance.

¶37

To constitute the commission of offence punishable under Sections 504 and 506 of IPC, the intentional insult must be of such a degree so as to cause break of the public peace or commission of any other offence. In the case on hand, the filthy

¶38

¶39

language alleged to have been used by the petitioner has not caused any breach of public peace or commission of any other offence. In the absence of essential ingredients so as to constitute offences punishable under Section 504 and 506 of IPC, the filing of the charge sheet against the petitioner for the aforesaid offences is also without substance.

¶40

9. Accordingly, I pass the following order:

¶41

ORDER

¶42

i) The Criminal petition is allowed.

¶43

ii) The impugned proceedings in Special Case No.38/2019 on the file of the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Judge at Bengaluru is hereby quashed.

¶44

Sd/JUDGE

¶45

AKC

M.V. Nethrananda v. State of Karnataka by

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.V. Nethrananda v. State of Karnataka 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

C Ankanna Reddy Vs State of Karnataka

Xxxxxx (Letter Dated 16.03.2024) Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Anant G N Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs. M. Dhanalakshmi Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs. Shylaja Iyer Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Bharathi v Vs the Regional Transport Authority