Allowed

Smt.B.D.Jalajakshi v. Sri.N.Nagaraj

Karnataka HC27 Jan 2022CRL.RP/1236/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal revision petition holding that the lower court's dismissal order was cryptic and showed non-application of mind. The Court ruled that police excesses do not require sanction under the Prevention of Corruption Act and remanded the matter for fresh orders.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for passing orders afresh.

Smt.B.D.Jalajakshi Vs Sri.N.Nagaraj — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 27^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.1236 OF 2017

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

Smt. B.D.Jalajakshi Wife of Y.Nagaraj, Aged about 42 years, Residing at No.48, 4^th Main Road, Byrasandra, Jayanagar 1^st Block East, Bengaluru-560011.

¶8

…Petitioner

¶9

(By Sri Tomy Sebastian, Senior Advocate for Sri Reny Sebastian, Advocate)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Sri N.Nagaraj, Son of Late Narasaraju, Major, Residing at No.1324, 32 ‘F’ Main, 28^th Main Road, 4^th ‘T’ Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560011.

¶12

Smt. Lakshmi, Wife of Somashekar @ Rajkumar, Major Residing at No.102/6, 5^th Cross Road, 1^st Main Road, Byrasandra, Jayanagar 1^st Stage East, Bengaluru-560011.

¶13

:: 2 ::

¶14

Sri Somashekar @ Rajkumar, Son of Late Kenchappa, Major, Residing at No.102/6, 5^th Cross Road, 1^st Main Road, Byrasandra, Jayanagar 1^st Stage East, Bengaluru-560011. 4. Sri Srinivas Y., Son of Late Yallappa, Major, Residing at No.4, 3^rd Cross Road, Byrasandra, Jayanagar 1^st Stage East, Bengaluru-560011. 5. Sri Kiranraju, Son of Venkatakrishnaraju, Major, Residing at No.793, 31^st Cross Road, Balamuri Ganapathi Temple Road, Tilak Nagar, Bengaluru-560011. 6. Sri Shivakumar, Son of Unkown, Major Residing at No. 34/2, 2^nd Main, Byrasandra, Jayanagar 1^st Stage East, Bengaluru-560011. 7. Byrasandra Bovi Janangagala Devalayagala Abhivruddi Sanga ® At No.7, Sri Eshwara Devalaya, Nirvanamma Devi Complex, 8^th Cross Road, Jayanagar 1^st Stage East, Bengaluru-560011. 8. Sri Shivanna, Police Sub-Inspector,

¶15

:: 3 ::

¶16

Sidhapura Police Station, Sidhapura, Bengaluru-560029.

¶17

Sri Angadi Police Inspector Sidhapura Police Station, Sidhapura, Bengaluru-560029.

¶18

Sri Y.Ravi, Son of Late Yelappa, Major, Resident of No.48, 4^th Main Road, Byrasandra, Jayanagar 1^st Stage East, Bengaluru-560011.

¶19

Smt. Muthamma @ Jayamma, Wife of Y Ravi, Major, Resident of No.48, 4^th Main Road, Byrasandra, Jayanagar 1^st Stage East, Bengaluru-560011.

¶20

Sri R.Bharath, Son of Y.Ravi, Major, Resident of No.48, 4^th Main Road, Byrasandra, Jayanagar 1^st Stage East, Bengaluru-560011.

¶21

Smt. R.Hema, D/o Y.Ravi, Major, Resident of No.48, 4^th Main Road, Byrasandra, Jayanagar 1^st Stage East, Bengaluru-560011.

¶22

:: 4 ::

¶23

Sri R.Jayaram Son of Late Ramappa, Major, Resident of No.15, 1^st Cross Road, 4^th Main Road, Byrasandra, Jayanagar 1^st Stage East, Bengaluru-560011. 15. Sri. M.Chandra @ Patel, Son of Late Muniyappa, Major, 3^rd Cross Road, 8^th Main Road, Byrasandra, Jayanagar 1^st Stage East, Bengaluru-560011. 16. Sri M.Mahesh, Son of Unknown, Major, Resident of No.22/1, 3^rd Cross Road, 3^rd Main Road, Byrasandra, Jayanagar 1^st Stage East, Bengaluru-560011. 17. Sri Manjunath, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Jayanagar, Bengaluru-560011. 18. Director, Suvarana News 24x7, No.36, Crescent Road, Opp. to Malige Medical Center, Bengaluru-560011. …Respondents (By Sri N.I.Ganesh, Advocate for R1; Sri Murthy D. Naik, Senior Advocate for Sri K.N.Mahesha, Advocate for R2 to R9 and R14 to 17; R18 - served)

¶24

:: 5 ::

¶25

This Criminal Revision Petition is filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., praying to set aside the order dated 13.10.2017 dismissing the complaint by issuing appropriate direction to the court below to proceed with the case afresh in accordance with law.

¶26

This Criminal Revision Petition coming on for admission through video conferencing this day, the Court made the following:

¶27

ORDER

¶28

The petitioner has called in question the order dated 13.10.2017 in PCR 17/2014 on the file of II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.

¶29

The briefs facts are that the petitioner filed a complaint against the respondents for prosecuting them in relation to offences punishable under Sections 120, 499, 506, 509 IPC and 3(1)(viii), (x), (xi), (xii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. She alleged that she was insulted and humiliated by accused no.1 taking her caste name and the police also, instead of taking

¶30

:: 6 ::

¶31

action against accused no.1 when she gave report of commission of offence, bet and kicked her and ridiculed her saying that she was a woman of loose character. Some of the accused are police personnel. The court below recorded sworn testimonies of the complainant and two witnesses. They produced documents marked as per ExP1 to P28. Perusing the statements of the witnesses and the documents, the court below held that prima facie case was not made out and hence dismissed the complainant. The petitioner has assailed this order.

¶32

Heard Sri Tomy Sebastian, learned senior

¶33

counsel for the petitioner, Sri N.I.Ganesh for respondent 1 and Sri Murthy D. Naik for respondents 2 to 9 and 14 to 17.

¶34

The impugned order shows that the court

¶35

below dismissed the complaint exercising power under Section 203 Cr.P.C. While the court has all

¶36

:: 7 ::

¶37

the powers to dismiss a complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. if no case is made out for taking cognizance, but that order must clearly depict application of mind to the materials placed before court. Of course the order must be brief, but it should not be cryptic. The impugned order is very cryptic and shows non-application of mind by the court below to the materials on record.

¶38

No doubt, the court below has noticed the delay in lodging the complaint, but where it has gone wrong is application of Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act. Probably the court below might have come to a conclusion that the alleged excesses by the police would amount to criminal misconduct for referring to Section 13 of Prevention of Corruption Act and thereby sanction was necessary before initiating complaint. But police excesses cannot be brought under Section

¶39

:: 8 ::

¶40

13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, its scope is altogether different.

¶41

Regarding excesses alleged against the police, whether sanction is required or not is to be examined in the light of ratio setout in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of D.Devaraja vs Owais Sabeer Hussain [(2020) 7 SCC 695]. Thus seen, the impugned order does not stand to reason and it is better that the court below should redo the process again. Hence the revision petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded for passing orders afresh.

¶42

The petitioner shall appear before the court

below on 17.2.2022.

JUDGE

Sd/-

Smt.B.D.Jalajakshi v. Sri.N.Nagaraj

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.B.D.Jalajakshi v. Sri.N.Nagaraj

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

Mrs Hemalatha Ramu Vs Sri Srikanth R Pawar

Smt. Geetha Mani Vs Sri Ponnalagu

Mr Vaibhav Gupta Vs Union of India

K.B.Srinivas Vs Dr.Chandrashekar B.Patil

Sri B S Kantharaj Vs Sri H M Shiva Prakash

Wasim Haider @ Haidar Vs the State of Karnataka