Allowed

Smt. Saroja S Bhairi v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC14 Dec 2023CRL.P/103546/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Criminal Petition sought quashing of FIR proceedings under the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, registered on a police report contrary to the statutory requirement of a complaint to a Magistrate. The Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The proceedings in Vidyanagar Police Station Crime No.150/2023 for offences under Sections 7 and 9 of the Act are quashed, with liberty to the informant to file a complaint before a Magistrate.

Smt. Saroja S Bhairi Vs the State of… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC-D:14687 CRL.P No. 103546 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 14^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2023 R

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

¶7

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103546 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. SAROJA S. BHAIRI, AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. DOCTOR, R/O. WARD NO.48 NEAR TIMMASAGAR TIMPLE, 1^ST CROSS, NEW COURT ROAD, VIDAYNAGAR, HUBBALLI, DIST. DHARWAD. (IN FIR ADDRESS MENTIONED AS TIMMASAGAR GUDI ONI, HOSUR, HUBBALLI-580021)

¶10

… PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. A.C. CHAKALABBI AND SRI. S.B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATES)

¶12

AND:

¶13

VIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPI Digitally signedbyVIJAYALAKSHMIM KANKUPPIDate: 2023.12.2012:51:49 +0530

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, (THROUGH VIDYANAGAR P.S. HUBBALLI DHARWAD) SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING, DHARWAD.

¶15

SURESH RATHOD, JUNIOR HEALTH INSPECTOR, ZONAL NO.05 HDMC, HUBBALLI-580020.

¶16

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

¶17

NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DTD 14.12.2023)

¶18

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/SEC. 482 OF CR.P.C. SEEKING TO ALLOW THE CRIMINAL PETITION BY QUASHING THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN VIDYANAGAR PS CRIME NO.150/2023 REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1 FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 7, 9 OF THE PROHIBITION OF EMPLOYMENT AS

¶19

2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14687 CRL.P No. 103546 of 2023

¶20

MANUAL SCAVENGERS AND THEIR REHABILITATION ACT 2013 PENDING ON THE FILE OF 1^ST ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE (JR.DN) COURT HUBBALLI IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED AND GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶21

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

¶22

ORDER

¶23

This petition is filed praying to quash the entire proceedings in Vidyanagar Police Station Crime No.150/2023 registered against the petitioner for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 9 of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’, for short).

¶24

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

¶25

Respondent No.2 has filed first information and

¶26

based on that, a case came to be registered in Crime No.150/2023 of Vidyanagar Police Station for an offence under Section 7 read with Section 9 of the Act. The petitioner has been arrayed as accused in the said FIR. The

¶27

3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14687 CRL.P No. 103546 of 2023

¶28

petitioner has sought quashing of the proceedings of the said Crime No.150/2023.

¶29

The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that, penal provisions are provided under Section 9 of the Act for contravention of Section 7 of the Act. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has violated Section 7 of the Act and therefore, he is liable for prosecution for an offence under Section 9 of the Act. He further submits that, only, upon a complaint, the Court has to take cognizance of an offence punishable under the Act as per Section 10 of the Act. In the case on hand, respondent No.2 has filed first information and it is not a complaint as defined under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. On that ground, he sought quashing of the proceedings against the petitioner.

¶30

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader would submit that, as a complaint is required to be filed, liberty may be reserved to respondent No.2 to file the complaint.

¶31

4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14687 CRL.P No. 103546 of 2023

¶32

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties,

¶33

the Court has perused the records.

¶34

Respondent No.2 has filed the first information and on that basis a case came to be registered in Vidyanagar Police Station Crime No.150/2023 for offences under Sections 7 and 9 of the Act. The allegations against the petitioner is of violation of Section 7 which is punishable under Section 9 of the Act. It is relevant to extract Sections 7, 9 and 10 of the Act.

¶35

“ 7. Prohibition of persons from engagement or employment for hazardous cleaning of sewers and septic tanks.- No person, local authority or any agency shall, from such date as the State Government may notify, which shall not be later than one year from the date of commencement of this Act, engage or employ, either directly or indirectly, any person for hazardous cleaning of a sewer or a septic tank.

¶36

9.Penalty for contravention of section 7.- Whoever

¶37

contravenes the provisions of section 7 shall for the first contravention be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years or with fine which may extend to two lakh rupees or with both, and for any subsequent contravention with imprisonment which may

¶38

5 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14687 CRL.P No. 103546 of 2023

¶39

extend to five years or with fine which may extend to five lakh rupees, or with both.

¶40

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

¶41

As per the provisions contained under Section 10

¶42

of the Act, it is only upon a complaint, the Court has to take cognizance of any offence punishable under the Act. The word “complaint” has been defined under Section 2(d) of Cr.P.C. which reads thus:-

¶43

“2.Definitions.-

¶44

(d)"complaint" means any allegation made orally or in writing to a Magistrate, with a view to his taking action under this Code, that some person, whether known or unknown, has committed an offence, but does not include a police report.”

¶45

The said definition of complaint does not include

¶46

police report. The complaint is required to be made to the Magistrate. The report made by respondent No. 2 is to the police who registered the said report in Crime No.150/2023 of Vidyanagar Police Station.

¶47

6 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14687 CRL.P No. 103546 of 2023

¶48

10. In view of the provision contained under Section

¶49

10 of the Act, the police cannot receive a report and register

¶50

a case under the provision of the Act. Therefore, the FIR registered based on the report of respondent No.2 is required to be quashed with liberty to respondent No.2 to file a complaint to the Magistrate.

¶51

11. In the result, the following:

¶52

ORDER

¶53

The petition is allowed.

¶54

The proceedings in Vidyanagar Police Station Crime No.150/2023 registered for offence under Sections 7 and 9

¶55

of the Act, are quashed. Respondent No.2 is at liberty to file a complaint to the Magistrate.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

CT:BCK

¶58

kmv

Smt. Saroja S Bhairi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Saroja S Bhairi 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

Sri Gopinath Vs the State of Karnataka

Mohammed Yaseen Naikwadi S/O Abdulla Naikwadi Vs Smt Aneesa Mohammed Yaseen Naikwadi

M/S Nowofln Service India Pvt. Ltd. Vs the State of Karnataka

Mahantesh S/O Shetteppa Rathoda Vs the State of Karnataka

Chakradhar S/O Ganesh Alias T Ganesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Shankar S/O Guralingappa Gopashetti Vs Smt Kusuma W/O Mohan Bali