Allowed

Shri Sumanth N v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC26 May 2022WP/49799/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed to quash the order of taking cognizance and further proceedings in a criminal case under the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013. Court quashed proceedings on the ground that cognizance by a Magistrate is only maintainable on a private complaint, not a police report or charge sheet.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; Impugned order dated 12.04.2019 and all further proceedings in C.C.No.8952/2019 quashed.

Shri Sumanth N Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 26^TH DAY OF MAY, 2022

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

WRIT PETITION No.49799 OF 2019(GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN

¶8

SHRI.SUMANTH N., S/O NAGARAJU K.H., AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS # 65, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, 3^RD STAGE, VIJAYNAGAR,

¶9

BANGALORE -560 040 .. PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. M.S.SHYAM SUNDAR, SENIOR COUNSEL ALONG WITH Ms.VANDANA P.L., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND

¶12

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION, BANGALORE CITY, REPRESENTED BY HCGP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BANGALORE -560 001

¶13

MR.NRASIMHA MURTHY S/O UNKNOWN AGED MAJOR NO.18E, 4^TH STREET, O.M.ROAD, ULSOOR, BANGALORE -560 008. .. RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SRI.K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R-1, SRI.A.CHETHAN, ADVOCATE FOR SRI.S.BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

¶15

¶16

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER OF TAKING COGNIZANCE DATED 12.04.2019 PASSED BY THE VIII ADDITIONAL CMM COURT, BANGALORE AND QUASHMENT OF ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.8952/2019 ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.152/2016 OF CUBBON PARK POLICE STATION FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 OF THE PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT AS MANUAL SCAVENGERS AND THEIR REHABILITATION ACT 2013, ARRAIGNING THE PRESENT PETITIONER AS ACCUSED NO.1 VIDE ANNEXURE-D ETC.

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Petitioner is before this court seeking to quash the order dated 12.04.2019 and further proceedings in C.C.No.8952/2019 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (`Act’ for short).

¶20

Heard learned Senior counsel Sri.M.S.Shyam

¶21

Sundar appearing for the petitioner and learned HCGP representing the respondent No.1.

¶22

¶23

Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition as projected by the prosecution are as follows:

¶24

On 02.09.2016 the second respondent, when passing by M.G.Road, notices the Engineer-Petitioner of the BWSSB indulging in letting down a human being into a manhole. This drives the said onlooker to register a complaint against the petitioner before the Cubbon Park Police Station. The registration of the complaint becomes an FIR in Crime No.152/2016 for the afore quoted offences. Police after investigation have filed a charge sheet in the matter. On filing of charge sheet, the petitioner has knocked the doors of this court in the subject petition.

¶25

The learned Senior counsel would vehemently argue and contend that the complaint so registered before the police was not even maintainable in terms of the Act; `Manual scavenging’ as defined under the

¶26

¶27

Act does not bring within its sweep the present facts and all the statements of the witnesses taken by the police were in favour of the petitioner and the police ought to have closed the issue by filing a`B’ report but have instead filed a charge sheet without any material and would seek quashment of proceedings so impugned in the petition.

¶28

On the other hand learned HCGP submits that police after investigation filed a charge sheet which would clear that an employee who was engaged for the day had been let into the manhole contrary to the provisions of the Act and therefore, petitioner would become liable for the offences punishable under the Act.

¶29

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶30

submissions made by the learned counsel appearing

¶31

¶32

for the petitioner and learned HCGP appearing for the State.

¶33

The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute.

¶34

The contention of the learned senior counsel that manual scavenging would not cover the alleged act of letting in a human being into the drain for laying down bricks so that the flow in the drain could be proper and it being the plausible explanation need not be gone into as admittedly, the complainant has knocked the doors of jurisdictional police station and the police have conducted investigation and filed a charge sheet in the matter for offences punishable under Sections 5 to 10 of the Act. Section 10 of the Act reads as follows:

¶35

“10. Limitation of prosecution – No court shall take cognizance of any offence punishable under this Act except upon a complaint thereof is made by a person in this behalf within three

¶36

¶37

months from the date of the occurrence of the alleged commission of the offence”.

¶38

Section 10 of the Act bars any Court to take cognizance of any offence under the Act except upon a complaint thereon made by a person in this behalf.

¶39

Section 10 clearly mandates that the Court shall take cognizance only on a complaint being registered. The complaint would mean a private complaint and not a complaint to the police and the learned Magistrate takes cognizance on a police report. On this short ground the very complaint itself was not maintainable before the Police. The subsequent act of the learned Magistrate taking cognizance for the offence and registering C.C.No.8952 of 2019 which arose out of Crime No.152 of 2016 would all be a nullity in law as the very foundation i.e., registration of the complaint is

¶40

¶41

contrary to law. On this short ground, without going into the issue whether the act of the petitioner in directing his employee to go into the manhole which would become offence under the provisions of the Act need not be gone into. For the aforesaid solitary ground, the writ petition deserves to succeed.

¶42

For the afore quoted reasons, following:

¶43

ORDER

¶44

(i) Writ Petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 12.04.2019 and all further proceedings pending before the VIII Additional CMM Court, Bengaluru in C.C.No.8952/2019 stand quashed.

¶45

(iii) Petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits that would flow from the quashment of the order.

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

SBN

Shri Sumanth N v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri Sumanth N 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

Divya Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Richa Mishra Vs the Commissioner of Police

Vikram Vincent Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Vijay Kumar Mahipal @ Vijay Kumar Vs the Commissioner

M/S R v Constructions Vs Sri Narayan Reddy v

M/S R v Constructions Vs Srinarayana Reddy v