Allowed

Smt. Muthamma, W/O B. Nagaraju, v. the State

Karnataka HC19 Apr 2022CRL.A/685/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal appeal by an appellant challenging the dismissal of her anticipatory bail petition. The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower court order and granting bail subject to specific conditions, noting a dispute on caste synonymity.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order setting aside anticipatory bail was set aside; the appellant is to be released if arrested, subject to conditions including execution of a personal bond of Rs.50,000/-.

Smt. Muthamma, W/O B. Nagaraju, Vs the State — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ

¶6

CRIMINAL APPEAL No.685 OF 2022

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. MUTHAMMA, W/O. B. NAGARAJU, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O. PURA VILLAGE, K.R. PETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 426.

¶9

... APPELLANT

¶10

(BY SRI SAGAR B.B., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

THE STATE BY K.R.PETE TOWN POLICE, REPRESENTED BY S.P.P., HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING, BANGALORE – 560 001.

¶13

THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, CIVIL RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT DIRECTORATE, MYSORE – 570 001.

¶14

... RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI K.K. KRISHNA KUMAR, H.C.G.P. FOR R.1; SRI C. JAGADISH, ADVOCATE FOR R.2.)

¶16

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14(A)(2) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 29.02.2020 CRL.MISC.NO.172/2020 ENLARGE THE APPELLANT ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL IN CONNECTION WITH CR.NO.204/2019 REGISTERED BY K.R. PETE TOWN POLICE, FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S.198 AND 420 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(ix) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, ON THE FILE OF THE V ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MANDYA BY IMPOSING ANY REASONABLE CONDITIONS.

¶17

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

In this appeal, the appellant has sought to set aside the Order dated 29.02.2020 passed by the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Crl.Misc.No.172/2020, wherein her application filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. has been dismissed.

¶21

Heard the learned counsel for appellant and

¶22

the learned counsel for respondents.

¶23

It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant / accused despite belonging to ‘Parivara caste’, claiming to be a member of ‘Nayaka caste’ coming under Scheduled Tribe, obtained a false Caste Certificate and contested in the Taluka Panchayat Election under the Scheduled Tribe category and cheated the Government by availing the facilities meant for the members of Scheduled Tribe. Subsequently, the District Caste

¶24

¶25

Verification Committee after conducting the investigation passed an order dated 12.07.2019 directing the Tahsildar to cancel the caste certificate and accordingly, the Tahsildar has cancelled the caste certificate on 13.08.2019.

¶26

Based on the above allegations, the PSI, Directorate of Civil Rights Enforcement (‘DCRE’ for short), Mysuru, lodged a complaint against the appellant and a case was registered in Crime No.204/2019 at K.R.Pete Town Police Station for offences punishable under Sections 198 and 420 of IPC and Section 3(1)(ix) of Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities Amendment Act, 2015. (‘SC/ST (POA) Act’ for short).

¶27

The appellant preferred a petition under

¶28

Section 438 of Cr.P.C. before the learned Sessions Judge, which came to be dismissed. Hence, she is before this Court in this appeal filed under Section 14A(2) of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989.

¶29

¶30

The learned counsel appearing for respondent

¶31

No.2 has contended that in similar circumstances, this Court in Crl.P.No.778/2021 in Smt. Jayanthi v. State

¶32

of Karnataka has rejected the prayer of the petitioner for anticipatory bail observing that there is a Bar under Sections 18 and 18A of the SC/ST(POA) Act to grant anticipatory bail.

¶33

In the said case, the petitioner therein had obtained a false caste certificate in the name of ‘Medha

¶34

Community’ coming under Scheduled Tribes though she belonged to ‘Brahmin community’. In the said facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has held that the petitioner was well aware that she has obtained the certificate which is false and therefore there is a prima facie case made out against her for obtaining the false caste certificate.

¶35

In the case on hand, it is the specific case of the complainant that the appellant belongs to ‘Parivara

¶36

¶37

Caste’ and she obtained a caste certificate as ‘Nayaka Caste’ coming under Scheduled Tribes.

¶38

The learned counsel for appellant has relied

¶39

on a Circular issued by the State Government in SaKaE 23 SED 2009 dated 31.08.2020 and the clarification issued by the Government of India to the Social Welfare Department, Government of Karnataka regarding the issuance of Scheduled Tribe Certificate to Parivara and Talawara Community, to contend that ‘Parivara’ and ‘Talawara’ are the synonyms of ‘Nayaka’.

¶40

The learned counsel for respondents have contended that after an enquiry, the caste certificate of the appellant has been annulled by the District Caste Verification Committee and the said order has not been challenged by the appellant, for which, the learned counsel for appellant has contended that no notice was issued to the appellant and an ex-parte order was passed, which is not disputed by the learned counsel for respondents.

¶41

¶42

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in an unreported decision in the case of Smt. Yamuna v. The State passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.989/2012

¶43

C/w Criminal Revision Petition No.988/2012 at paragraph-10 has observed that, if a false caste certificate obtained by persons not belonging to Scheduled Castes / Scheduled Tribes by giving wrong information, it does not mean a public servant is induced to take action against a member of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.

¶44

In the instant case, there is a dispute as to whether ‘Parivara Caste’ is a synonym of ‘Nayaka Caste’. The appellant has placed reliance on the Circular noted supra. Hence, it cannot be said that there is a prima facie case against the appellant at this stage. However, it is for the prosecution to establish the ingredients of the offence alleged in the FIR. The appellant has made sufficient grounds to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Sessions Court. Hence, the following:

¶45

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i. The appeal is allowed . The order dated 29.02.2020 passed by the Court of V Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mandya, in Crl.Misc.No.172/2020 is hereby set aside.

¶48

ii. The appellant/accused in Crime

¶49

No.204/2019 of K.R.Pete Town Police Station, Mandya, shall be released in the event of her arrest, subject to following conditions:

¶50