Allowed

Ramu S/O Krishna Doddamani v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Dec 2023CRL.P/101177/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Two criminal petitions challenged the FIR and complaint under the SC/ST Act and IPC. The High Court held that the complaint lacked essential ingredients regarding caste motive and specific allegations, constituting an abuse of process of law, and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The FIR and complaint registered in Crime No.28/2022 in Sub-Urban Police Station Dharwad are quashed.

Ramu S/O Krishna Doddamani Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488 CRL.P No. 104105 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 101177 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104105 OF 2022

¶8

C/W

¶9

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101177 OF 2022

¶10

IN CRL.P. NO. 104105 OF 2022:

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

SHRI. RAJU S/O SHANKARRAO AMBORE, AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, R/O. SAI KRUPA MARATHA COLONY, DHARWAD-580008.

¶13

… PETITIONER

¶14

(BY SRI. SHRIKANT T. PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, R/BY SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION, DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD, R/BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH.

¶17

VIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPI Digitally signedbyVIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPI Date: 2023.12.1412:26:08 +0530

¶18

SHRI. RAGHAVENDRA S/O DODDARAMAPPA DODDAMANI, AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, PWD OFFICE, R/O. PWD OFFICE, NEAR KCD CIRCLE, DHARWAD.

¶19

… RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SURESH S. SHETTAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH FIR AND COMPLAINT REGISTERED BY SUB URBAN POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.28/2022 FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(S), 3(1)(p), 3(2)(5A) SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT 2014 AND

¶22

¶23

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488 CRL.P No. 104105 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 101177 of 2022

¶24

SECTION 353, 304 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF 2^ND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DHARWAD AT DHARWAD IN SO FAR AS ACCUSED NO.2 i.e., PETITIONER HEREIN IS CONCERNED IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶25

IN CRL.P. NO.101177 OF 2022:

¶26

BETWEEN:

¶27

RAMU S/O KRISHNA DODDAMANI, AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. PWD CONTRACTOR, R/O. BIG HOUSE, OPP. KARIYAMMA TEMPLE, SAIDAPUR, DHARWAD-580001.

¶28

… PETITIONER

¶29

(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶30

AND:

¶31

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, THROUGH SUB-URBAN DHARWAD POLICE STATION, R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT. DAHRWAD-580011.

¶32

RAGHVENDRA D. DODDAMANI, AGE. MAJOR, OCC. ASSISTANT ENGINEER, R/O. PWD SUB-DIV , NEAR AIR, DHARWAD-580001.

¶33

… RESPONDENTS

¶34

(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1;

¶35

SRI. SURESH S. SHETTAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶36

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.28/2022 DATED 05.02.2022 REGISTERED BY SUB-URBAN DHARWAD P.S. PENDING THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, DHARWAD, AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(p), 3(2)(5a) OF SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT, AND U/S 353 AND 504 OF IPC AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.

¶37

THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶38

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488 CRL.P No. 104105 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 101177 of 2022

¶39

ORDER

¶40

The Criminal Petition No.104105/2022 is filed by accused No.2 and Criminal Petition No.101177/2022 is filed by accused No.1. Both the petitions are filed praying to quash the FIR and complaint in Dharwad, Sub-Urban Police Station Crime No.28/2022 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(p), 3(2)(v-a) of The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’ for brevity) and Sections 353 and 504 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as ‘IPC’ for brevity).

¶41

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the petitions, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State.

¶42

Respondent No.2 filed complaint and the same

¶43

came to be registered in Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station Crime No.28/2022 for the aforesaid offences. In

¶44

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488 CRL.P No. 104105 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 101177 of 2022

¶45

the FIR, petitioners have been arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2. The petitioners have sought quashing of the complaint and FIR in Crime No.28/2022 of Dharwad SubUrban Police Station.

¶46

Learned counsel for accused No.2 (petitioner in Crime No.104105/2022) would contend that there is no allegation of any abuse to respondent No.2 touching his caste to attract the offence under Section 3 of the Act. Even there is no allegation of accused No.2 being present on the date of incident i.e., 04.02.2022 at the spot. Accused No.2 has been named in the complaint only on the assumption that he and accused No.1 were involved in sending a letter through post on 03.02.2022 making allegations about working style of respondent No.2 to Governor of Karnataka State. What is contained in the said postal cover has not been stated in the complaint. He contends that there are no materials against accused No.2 to attract the offences for which the case is registered.

¶47

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488 CRL.P No. 104105 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 101177 of 2022

¶48

With this, he prayed for quashing of the proceedings against accused No.2.

¶49

Learned counsel for accused No.1 (Petitioner in Criminal Petition No.101177/2022) would contend that respondent No.2 only assuming that accused Nos.1 and 2 might have sent a cover containing some allegations against him made in fictitious name namely Lokanath H. Hindasageri and with an intention to take revenge against them, has made a false allegation against this accused No.1 of abuse by touching his caste that too after office hours on 04.02.2022. Learned counsel for accused No.1 would contend that averments of complaint does not contain that accused persons are not the members of Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with an intent to humiliate in a place within public view. He contends that even respondent No.2 has not stated in the complaint that the accused persons knew his caste prior to the date incident. On that point, he placed reliance on the decisions of

¶50

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488 CRL.P No. 104105 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 101177 of 2022

¶51

Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Others¹ , Asmathunnisa Vs state of Andhra Pradesh Represented by the Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and Another² , Judgment of this Court in the case of Deepak Mahadevappa Turamari and others Vs State of Karnataka and Another³ and in the case of Harish S/o H.Shanthana Gouda and others Vs The State of Karnataka and Another⁴ . The complaint filed by respondent No.2 is abuse of process of law which is filed with intent to take revenge against accused persons assuming that they sent a letter to the Governor of Karnataka making false allegations against him in the fictitious name on the previous day of incident. With this, he prayed to allow the petitions.

¶52

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 and

¶53

learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State would contend

¶54

1 (2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 531

¶55

2 (2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 259

¶56

3 Crl.P.No.100915/2019 & connected matter, decided on 16.08.2021.

¶57

4 Crl.P.No.103202/2022, decided on 29.11.2023

¶58

7 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488 CRL.P No. 104105 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 101177 of 2022

¶59

that on perusal of the averments of complaint there is a specific allegation against accused No.2 of abusing respondent No.2 taking his caste name in the presence of four persons present in the office of respondent No.2 at about 6:55 p.m on 04.02.2022. The act of accused No.1 has caused hindrance in discharge of duties by respondent No.2. The said aspect itself attracts the offences alleged against accused No.1. They contended that even though there is no specific allegation against accused No.2, but the averments of complaint reveal that he along with accused No.1 had sent a false complaint through post in fictitious name against respondent No.2. They contended that there are no grounds for quashing proceedings at this stage. With this, they prayed to dismiss the petitions.

¶60

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court has perused the FIR, complaint, other documents and the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the parties.

¶61

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488 CRL.P No. 104105 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 101177 of 2022

¶62

Respondent No.2 has filed first information on

¶63

05.02.2022 and it came to be registered in Crime No.28/2022 of Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(p), 3(2)(v-a) of the Act. The petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the FIR. In the averments of the first information it is stated that one Loknath H.Hindasageri, Secretary of Dharwad District Contractors Association, Navanagar has made a complaint against him regarding his working style and acquiring properties worth crores. In the first information it is further averred that the petitioners (accused Nos.1 and 2) were found in the post office on 03.02.2022 at about 11:25 a.m, and it is recorded in the CCTV footage and it is alleged that they might have been involved in sending a complaint against him in the name of Loknath H.Hindasageri. In the first information, it is also averred that accused No.1 on 04.02.2022 at about 6:55 p.m, came to his office and asked for favour to allot tender of construction of judicial officers quarters at Kalaghatagi to

¶64

9 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488 CRL.P No. 104105 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 101177 of 2022

¶65

him and he did not agree. At that time, he abused him taking his caste name in filthy language in the presence of

¶66

five persons named in the first information. There is no allegation of accused No.2 being present on 04.02.2022 at the time of alleged incident and there is no allegation against him of abusing him taking his caste name. Therefore, on perusal of entire first information, there is no case made out against accused No.2 (petitioner in Crl.P.No.104105/2022). Therefore, complaint against accused No.2 is an abuse of process of law.

¶67

The allegation of accused Nos.1 and 2 being involved in sending a cover through post on 03.02.2022 at 11:25 A.M., and it is recorded in the CCTV footage. The alleged complaint is filed on 05.02.2022 making allegations regarding an incident on 04.02.2022 and respondent No.2 is not aware of what is that postal cover contained and to whom it is addressed. Therefore, the said

¶68

averments in the first information based on assumption/presumption of respondent No.2. There is no

¶69

10 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488 CRL.P No. 104105 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 101177 of 2022

¶70

mention in the averments of the first information that accused Nos.1 and 2 are not the members of Scheduled

¶71

Caste or Scheduled Tribe and they were aware of caste of respondent No.2.

¶72

On the basis of first information of respondent No.2, a case came to be registered in Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station Crime No.28/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(p), 3(2)(v-a) of the Act and other offences under IPC. In the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

¶73

and Others (supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court at paragraph No.6 it is held as under;

¶74

“The accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (respondent No. 3) was intentionally insulted or intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is mentioned that the accused-appellant was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent No. 3 in a place within public view.”

¶75

The aforesaid decision has been referred to in

¶76

the case of Asmathunnisa (supra). The basic ingredients

¶77

11 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488 CRL.P No. 104105 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 101177 of 2022

¶78

of Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(p), 3(2)(v-a) of the Act is that the complainant ought to have alleged that the petitioners were not the members of Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and they intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate in a place within public view. In the entire first information, nowhere it is mentioned that petitioners not the members of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and they intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent No.2 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the first information, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the petitioners to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law.

¶79

Relying the aforesaid decision in the case of the Gorige Pentaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesha and others⁵ and Asmathunnisa Vs State of Andhra

¶80

5 (2008) 12 SCC 531

¶81

12 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488 CRL.P No. 104105 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 101177 of 2022

¶82

Pradesh⁶ , this Court in the case of the Deepak Mahadevappa Turamari and Others Vs State of Karnataka and Others⁷ , quashed proceedings for offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC & ST Act. In the case on hand, in the first information, nowhere it is mentioned that petitioners were not members of the Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe and they intentionally insulted or intimidated by accused with intend to humiliate respondent No.2 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offences are missing in the first information, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the petitioners to face rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law. Therefore, the said first information is an abuse of process of law, which comes under the category No.7 of State of Harayana Vs Bhajan Lal and others⁸ case. Therefore, the proceedings against these

¶83

6 (2011) 11 SCC 259.

¶84

7 Crl.P.No.100915/2019 connected with Crl.P.No.101243/2019

¶85

8 AIR 1992 SC 604

¶86

13 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488 CRL.P No. 104105 of 2022 C/W CRL.P No. 101177 of 2022

¶87

petitioners requires to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the following,

¶88

ORDER

¶89

The Criminal Petition Nos.104105/2022 and 101177/2022 are allowed. The FIR and complaint registered in Crime No.28/2022 in Sub-Urban Police Station Dharwad, are quashed.

¶90

Sd/JUDGE

¶91

AM & DSP CT:BCK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

Ramu S/O Krishna Doddamani v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramu S/O Krishna Doddamani 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Basavaraj Vs Umashankarayya

Rajshekhar S/O. Neelakantayya Hiremath Vs the State of Karnataka

Chandrappa H S/O Nagamma Vs the State of Karnataka

Dinesh S Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammad Salim S/O Amirsab Mujawar Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri. Shivaray S/O Sharanappa Ishwarappagol Vs Dr Umesh S Vanahalli