Dismissed

Nagaraj Shetty S/O Late B Ramachandra Shetty v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC16 Nov 2023CRL.A/100314/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a criminal appeal seeking discharge of two appellants under Section 227 Cr.P.C. The Court rejected the contention that the incident was not in a public place or involved a Scheduled Caste accused in a manner attracting specific SC & ST Act provisions, finding the learned Sessions Judge correct in rejecting the discharge.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal is dismissed, and the order rejecting the discharge application stands upheld.

Nagaraj Shetty S/O Late B Ramachandra… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13333 CRL.A No. 100314 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100314 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

NAGARAJ SHETTY S/O LATE B. RAMACHANDRA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, INCHARGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF KOPPALA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, RESIDING OF HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI, OPP. GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL, VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583212.

¶10

PROF. DR. SHANKARA M. MALAPURE S/O. MALLARI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT G-1, I MAIN, SADASHIVA NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590019, FORMER DIRECTOR OF KOPPALA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES, KOPPALA-583104.

¶11

… APPELLANTS

¶12

(BY SRI. C.R BHASKAR, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by VIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPI VIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPI Date: 2023.11.20 11:48:59 +0530

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY KOPPALA RURAL POLICE, R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD-580001.

¶16

DEVENDRAPPA D. DODDAMANI S/O DODDAMANI, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, R/O SA. KUVEMPUNAGARA, FIVE HUNDRED FLAT, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583212.

¶17

… RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. NELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13333 CRL.A No. 100314 of 2023

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.14A(1) OF SC/ST ACT SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN SPL. CC(AC) NO.17/2018 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2022 PASSED ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE ACCUSED 1 TO 2 PETITIONERS NO.1 AND 2 UNDER SEC. 227 OF CR.P.C. IN SPL. CC(AC) NO.17/2018, ON THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOPPAL, FOR DISCHARGE ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 (PETITIONER 1 TO 2 ) FOR THE SAID OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 323, 341, 504, 506, R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(r) (s) 3(2) (v-a) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTE (POA) ACT 1989 AND ALLOW THE SAME, AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S.

¶22

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

JUDGMENT

¶24

The appellants have questioned the order dated 24.03.2022 passed in Spl. CC(AC) No.17/2018 by the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal, whereunder the discharge application filed by the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 227 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Cr.P.C.’, for short) in respect of Crime No.228/2017 for offences under Section 323, 341, 504 and 506 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IPC’, for short) and Section 3(1)(r) & (s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

¶25

¶26

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13333 CRL.A No. 100314 of 2023

¶27

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC & ST Act’, for short) came to be rejected.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

¶29

The case of the prosecution is that on 13.10.2017 at about 4:15 pm at KIMS, Koppal, when the complainant/respondent No.2 came to KIMS Hospital, Koppal, for asking information about the application filed by him under The Right to Information Act, at that time, the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 suddenly enraged over the complainant and restrained the complainant from proceeding further where he has right to proceed and abused the complainant in filthy language and assaulted him with hands and also abused him taking his caste and also gave threat to his life with dire consequences. On the basis of the complaint filed by respondent No.2, a case came to be registered against these appellants and another in Crime

¶30

¶31

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13333 CRL.A No. 100314 of 2023

¶32

No.228/2017 by Koppal Rural Police for the aforesaid offences. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against accused No.1 for the offences under Sections 341, 504, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST Act and in respect of accused No.2 only with respect of offences under Sections 341, 504, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. On the basis of the said charge sheet, a case came to be registered against these appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Spl.CC (AC) No.17/2018. The appellants filed an application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge. The learned Public Prosecutor filed objections to the said application. After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions/Special Judge has passed the impugned order rejecting the discharge application. The said order has been challenged in this appeal.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would contend that, the alleged incident has taken place in the office of accused No.2 and it is not in the view of the public and therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) & (s)

¶34

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13333 CRL.A No. 100314 of 2023

¶35

¶36

are not attracted. He further contended that, the complainant in the complaint has stated about the prior enmity with the accused and therefore respondent No.2 has filed a false complaint against the appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2. Even the wound certificate does not reveal any injury on the complainant and that the complainant himself has gone to the hospital and the police have not accompanied the complainant while he had gone to the hospital. He places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Sri. Rithesh Pais and State of Karnataka and another in Criminal Petition No.3597/2022 decided on 10.06.2022. He further contended that appellant No.2 belongs to Scheduled Caste and therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of SC & ST Act would not attract against him. He would contend that, without considering the material on record, the learned Sessions/Special Judge has passed the impugned order. With this he prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order and discharge the appellants.

¶37

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13333 CRL.A No. 100314 of 2023

¶38

¶39

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2, both, submit that the alleged incident has taken place in the office of the appellants and it is amenable to the public and is in view of the public. Charge sheet has been filed for the offences under the SC & ST Act only against accused No.1. There is a counter complaint registered against respondent No.2 by the first appellant and on that basis, a case came to be registered in Crime No.229/2017 for offences under Sections 504, 186, 353, 332, 506, 384 and 511 of IPC and

¶40

the same itself shows that there is a case and counter case between respondent No.2 and the appellants. They contend that there are eyewitnesses to the incident. A perusal of the entire charge sheet material show that there are grounds to proceed against the appellants and to frame charge for the offences alleged against them. Therefore, the learned Sessions/Special Judge has rightly rejected their discharge application. With this they prayed to dismiss the appeal.

¶41

¶42

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13333 CRL.A No. 100314 of 2023

¶43

Having heard the learned counsel for the appellants, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the charge sheet material.

¶44

7. In Sri. Rithesh Pais’s case (supra) relied upon by

¶45

the learned counsel for the appellants, the incident therein has taken place in the newly constructed building of the complainant and that too in the basement of the building. In the case at hand, the incident has taken place in the office of the appellants. Appellant No.1 is a Public Information Officer and is working as In-charge Chief Administrative Officer, KIMS, Koppal and accused No.2 is the Director in KIMS, Koppal. As per the averments of the complaint, the alleged incident has taken place in the office of the appellants. As per the spot mahazar, the incident has taken place in the Office of the Director, KIMS, Koppal. The spot of the incident is a place amenable to the public and in view of the public. Moreso, the said alleged incident has been witnessed by CWs.4 to 7, who have visited the KIMS Hospital with regard to the issue on drinking water. The

¶46

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:13333 CRL.A No. 100314 of 2023

¶47

alleged incident has taken place in a public place. The same has also been considered by the learned Sessions/Special Judge while passing the impugned order.

¶48

The learned counsel for the appellants contended that appellant No.2 belongs to SC and therefore offence under Section 3 of SC & ST Act are not attracted against him. On perusal of the charge sheet, appellant No.2/accused No.2 is not charged with the offence under Section 3 of SC & ST Act.

¶49

On perusal of the statement of the witnesses, namely CWs.4 to 7 and the averments in the compliant, the alleged offences under Sections 341, 504, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC are attracted against the appellants and there are material to frame charge against them.

¶50

Considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions/Special Judge has rightly passed the impugned order which does not call for interference by this Court.

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13333 CRL.A No. 100314 of 2023

¶52

¶53