Allowed

Amregouda S/O Doddanagouda Patil v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC8 Aug 2023CRL.P/101392/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court quashed special case proceedings instituted years after the petitioners were acquitted on identical allegations. Finding the complaint an abuse of process initiated with mala fide intent to harass, the Court held that continued proceedings would violate the ends of justice cited in Bhajan Lal.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; proceedings in Special Case No.19/2022 and the charge sheet standing quashed.

Amregouda S/O Doddanagouda Patil Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8526 CRL.P No. 101392 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶3

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101392 OF 2022 (482)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

AMREGOUDA

¶9

S/O DODDANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 42 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAMBALIHAL-587 125, TQ. HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOTE.

¶10

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶11

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Date: 2023.08.11 11:22:08 +0530

¶12

SHARANAGOUDA @ SHARANAPPAGOUDA S/O DODDANAGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAMBALIHAL-587 125, TQ. HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOTE.

¶13

3. DODDANAGOUDA

¶14

S/O AMAREGOUDA PATIL, AGE. 70 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. KAMBALIHAL-587 125, TQ. HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOTE.

¶15

… PETITIONERS

¶16

(BY SRI. SHRIHARSH A NEELOPANT, ADVOCATE)

¶17

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8526 CRL.P No. 101392 of 2022

¶18

AND:

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY POLICE INSPECTOR, ILKAL RURUAL POLICE STATION, ILKAL-587125, TQ. ILKAL, DIST. BAGALKOTE, THROUGH THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH AT DHARWAD.

¶20

HANAMAVVA D/O DODDAPPA TALAWAR, AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. KAMBALAHAL-587 125, TQ. HUNGUND, DIST. BAGALKOTE.

¶21

… RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. V S KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1; R2 SERVED)

¶23

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET IN SPL. CASE NO.19/2022 (ILKAL RURAL P.S. CRIME NO.04/2022) FILED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AGAINST THE PETITIONERS FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS, 323, 354, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC AND U/SEC. 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT), 1989 AS PER ANNEXUREE AND QUASH THE IMPUGNED PROCEEDINGS IN SPL CASE NO.19/2022 PENDING ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE BAGALAKOTE FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS, 323, 354, 504, 506, 34 OF IPC AND U/SEC. 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s) OF SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES ACT) ACT, 1989 AS PER ANNEXURE-A.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶25

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8526 CRL.P No. 101392 of 2022

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioners are before this Court calling in question proceedings in Special Case No.19/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

¶28

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

Facts in brief, germane, are as follows:

¶30

A complaint comes to be registered on 27.12.2021 by the 2^nd respondent against the petitioners, who are accused Nos.1 to 3. It is the case of the complainant that the accused No.1 - petitioner had indulged in physical relationship with the respondent on the promise of marriage and has breached such promise of marriage. Therefore, the offences under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 of the IPC. Since the complainant belongs to scheduled caste, the offence under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8526 CRL.P No. 101392 of 2022

¶32

Atrocities) Act, 1989 is also led. The Police after investigation filed a charge sheet and a Special Court registers Special Case No.19/2022. It is the registration of the special case that drives the petitioners to this Court in the subject petition.

¶33

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would contend that the complainant is in the habit of registering such complaints. One such compliant on an identical allegation was earlier registered, which had become a subject matter in Special Case No.7/2007 in which the petitioner gets acquitted in terms of the order of the concerned Court dated 16.11.2007. Long after the said acquittal, again the complainant registers an identical compliant in which though there are no offences which are alleged to be punished under Section 376 of the IPC, but the contents remain the case. He would seek quashment of the proceedings.

¶34

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8526 CRL.P No. 101392 of 2022

¶35

The complainant though served, has remains

¶36

unrepresented. Therefore, the petitioner and the learned HCGP are heard.

¶37

Learned HCGP on the other hand would seek to

¶38

refute the submissions to contend that the petitioner is alleged of offences punishable under Sections 323 or 354 of the IPC and the Police after investigation have filed their charge sheet. Therefore, the proceedings should be permitted to be continued, as it is for the petitioner to come out clean in the trial.

¶39

I have given my anxious consideration to the

¶40

submissions made by the respective counsel and have perused the material on record.

¶41

Before embarking upon consideration of the impugned complaint, I deem it appropriate to notice the order of acquittal passed by the concerned Court in Special

¶42

Case No.7/2007. The complainant is the same. The accused, the present petitioners are also the same, in the said proceedings. What is shocking is the offences are also

¶43

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8526 CRL.P No. 101392 of 2022

¶44

the same except the offence under Section 376 of the IPC. The subject matter of the said Special Case No.7/2007 is the physical relationship between the complainant and the accused No.1 therein on the promise of marriage and its breach. Therefore, the parents of the accused No.1 were also arrayed as accused in Special Case No.7/2007. The story had to end there. The impugned crime is registered on 27.12.2021 alleging verbatim similar allegations against the petitioners which had ended in acquittal in the aforesaid special case. The only difference between the two is the offence of Section 376 of the IPC is missing. Barring this, the complaint is verbatim similar to what the subject matter of acquittal, the Police after investigation had filed their charge sheet. Even the charge sheet as obtaining in column No.17 reads as follows:

¶45

“17. PÉÃ¹£À ¸ÀAQë¥ÀÛ ¸ÁgÁA±À

¶46

¸À¤ß¢ü PÉÆÃlð ¸ÀÜ¼À ¹ªÉÄÃAiÀÄ E®PÀ¯ï vÁ®ÆQ£À

¶47

PÀA§½ºÁ¼À UÁæªÀÄzÀ°è DgÉÆÃ¦vÀ£À ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ¸ÁªÀðd¤PÀ gÀ¸ÉÛAiÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É ¢£ÁAPÀ : 27-12-2021 gÀAzÀÄ 19-30 UÀAmÉ

¶48

¶49

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8526 CRL.P No. 101392 of 2022

¶50

¸ÀÄªÀiÁjUÉ zÉÆÃµÁgÉÆÃ¥Àt ¥ÀvÀæ PÁ®A £ÀA 12 gÀ°è £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ ªÀiÁrzÀ DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀ ¥ÉÊQ DgÉÆÃ¦ £ÀA.1 £ÉÃzÀ£ÁzÀ CªÀÄgÉÃUËqÀ zÉÆqÀØ£ÀUËqÀ ¥ÁnÃ®. ¸Á : PÀA§½ºÁ¼À EªÀ£ÀÄ ¸À£ï 2006£ÉÃ ¸Á°£À°è ¦AiÀiÁð¢AiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É CAvÁ ¦æÃw¹ CªÀ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ¸ÁA¸ÁjPÀ fÃªÀ£À ªÀiÁrzÀÄÝ CzÀjAzÀ CªÀ½UÉ MAzÀÄ ªÀÄUÀÄ d¤¹zÀÄÝ EzÁzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ CªÀ¼À£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÉÛÃ£É CAvÁ ºÉÃ¼ÀÄvÁÛ §AzÀÄ FUÀ CªÀ¼À£ÀÄß ©lÄÖ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArzÀÄÝ, F «µÀAiÀÄ w½zÀ ¦AiÀiÁð¢zÁgÀ¼ÀÄ DgÉÆÃ¦vÀgÀ ªÀÄ£ÉAiÀÄ ºÀwÛgÀ ºÉÆÃV DgÉÆÃ¦ £ÀA 1 £ÉÃzÀªÀ¤UÉ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ¦æÃw¹ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆ¼ÀÄîvÉÃ£É CAvÁ ºÉÃ½ £À£ÀUÉ MAzÀÄ ªÀÄUÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß PÉÆlÄÖ FUÀ ¨ÉÃgÉ ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆArgÀÄªÉ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ªÀÄzÀÄªÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆÃ CAvÁ ºÉÃ½zÀÝjAzÀ DgÉÆÃ¦ £ÀA.1 £ÉÃzÀªÀ£ÀÄ ¦AiÀiÁð¢UÉ ¤Ã£ÀÄ AiÀiÁgÀÄ £À£ÀUÉ UÉÆwÛ¯Áè ¯ÉÃ ¨ÁåqÀgÀ ¸ÀÆ½ ¤£Àß£ÀÄß ºÉAqÀwAiÀÄ£ÁßV ElÄÖPÉÆ¼Àî®Ä DUÀÄvÁÛ CAvÁ CªÁZÀå ±À§ÝUÀ½AzÀ ¨ÉÊzÁr PÉÊ¬ÄAzÀ ºÉÆr§r ªÀiÁqÀzÀÄÝ, DUÀ C¯ÉèÃ EzÀÝ DgÉÆÃ¦ £ÀA 2 ªÀÄvÀÄÛ 3 £ÉÃzÀªÀgÀÄ K ¨ÉÆÃ¸Àr gÀAr E¯ÁèöåPÀ §A¢ ¨ÁåqÀgÀ ¸ÀÆ½ CAvÁ ¦AiÀiÁð¢üAiÀÄ£ÀÄß vÀ¼Áîr eÁw ¤AzÀ£É ªÀiÁqÀzÀÄÝ C®èzÉÃ ¸ÀÄªÀÄä£ÉÃ ºÉÆÃUÀ¢zÀÝgÉÃ fÃªÀ ¸À»vÀ ©qÀÄªÀÅ¢¯Áè CAvÁ fÃªÀzÀ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ºÁQzÀ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ.”

¶51

8 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8526 CRL.P No. 101392 of 2022

¶52

The summary of the charge sheet would clearly indicate that an incident of 2006 in which the petitioners had already been acquitted is reiterated with there being no difference between the two. It is a classic case where laws abused and misused by the complainant. In the teeth of the aforesaid facts, if further proceedings are permitted to be continued it would run foul of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others reported in 1992 Supp(1) Supreme Court Cases 335 and the postulates laid down. The Apex Court has held as follows:

¶53

“ 102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an

¶54

¶55

NC: 2023:KHC-D:8526 CRL.P No. 101392 of 2022

¶56

exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

¶57

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

¶58

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶59

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused.

¶60

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code.

¶61

10 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8526 CRL.P No. 101392 of 2022

¶62

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

¶63

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

¶64

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.”

¶65

The Apex Court in the postulates laid down

¶66

supra clearly holds that if the criminal proceedings are instituted with mala fide intention, such crimes should not

¶67

be permitted to be investigated even. In the case at hand, the Police have filed their charge sheet for an incident of

¶68

11 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:8526 CRL.P No. 101392 of 2022

¶69

2006 in the year 2022 and for an incident tied long ago resulting in acquittal of petitioners. If further proceeding is permitted in the teeth of the aforesaid facts, it would

¶70

become an abuse of process of the law.

¶71