Allowed

Smt Uma R v. the State

Karnataka HC12 Apr 2023CRL.P/1055/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal petition under Section 482 CrPC, the High Court of Karnataka allowed the application to quash the charge sheet and proceedings against a headmistress accused of caste-based insult and criminal intimidation, finding the complaint lacked essential ingredients like specific caste mention and public occurrence.

What did the court decide?

Prosecution in Spl.C.C.No.536/2016 for offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST Act, 1989 and Section 506 of IPC is quashed.

Smt Uma R Vs the State — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

CRL.P No. 1055 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. NATARAJ CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1055 OF 2017

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT. UMA R. W/O VIRUPAKSHA SWAMY AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, OCC: HEAD MISTRESS HEBBAL MODEL PRIMARY SCHOOL R/O NO.5, 31, 3^RD CROSS, 1^ST MAIN, VINAYAK LAYOUT, BOOPASANDRA, BENGALURU – 560 052

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

Digitally signed by SUMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

(BY MS. KEERTHANA NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MALLIKARJUN MOULI)

¶12

AND:

¶13

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY THE POLICE OF MALLESHWARAM POLICE STATION BENGALURU - 560003 (INVESTIGATED BY ACP MALLESHWARAM SUB-DIVISION ) REPRESENTED BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU – 560 001

¶14

¶15

CRL.P No. 1055 of 2017

¶16

VENKATACHALAPATHY V MAJOR IN AGE R/AT C R P HEBBALA CLUSTER, NORTH -2, BENGALURU CITY – 560 024

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HCGP FOR R1 SRI. D.A SHIVA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER, QUASHING CAHRGESHEET IN CR.NO.221/2016 (IN SPL.C.C.NO.536/2016) REGISTERED ON THE FILE OF RESPONDENT NO.1/ MALLESHWARAM P.S., BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(x) OF SC AND ST (POA) ACT 1989 AND SEC. 506 OF IPC (NOW PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED II ADDL. C.C. AND S.J., AND SPECIAL COURT FOR SC/ST ACT CASES, BENGALURU (CCH-17), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioner has challenged her prosecution in Spl.C.C.No.536/2016 before the II Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Court for SC/ST Act cases, Bengaluru, for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth referred to as the Act of 1989) & Section 506 of IPC.

¶23

¶24

CRL.P No. 1055 of 2017

¶25

The case of the prosecution was that the respondent No.2 lodged a report dated 05.11.2016, with Respondent No.1, wherein he claimed that he was the Cluster Resource Person of Hebbal Cluster. He claimed that on 05.11.2016 he visited Hebbal High School to issue a reminder and on his way back he visited the Block Model Primary School, Hebbal. He found that classes were taken in the morning session itself. Since the Head Mistress was not available, he intimated Smt.Susheelamma, Senior Teacher that from November 2016 onwards classes should be held during the entire day on every Saturday and classes in the morning shall not be taken. He alleged that he had informed Block Education Officer as well as Block Resource Coordinator. He claimed that the petitioner herein being the headmistress of Block Model Primary School, visited the office of the Block Resource Coordinator and when he enquired with the petitioner as to why he was taking the classes in the morning session, she chided him as to who had given such wrong information. The respondent No.2 who was present there informed that he

¶26

¶27

CRL.P No. 1055 of 2017

¶28

was the one who had informed the Block Resource Coordinator. The petitioner allegedly challenged him and abused him by taking his caste. He claimed that he could not perform his duties due to the abusive language used by the petitioner against him. Based on the report, the jurisdictional police registered Crime No.221/2016 for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth referred to as the Act of 1989) & Section 506 of IPC.

¶29

Later, the respondent No.2 recorded his further statement on 07.11.2016, wherein he alleged that after he left the office of the Block Resource Coordinator and was waiting at a bus stand, he came across two of his acquaintances and was conversing the same. At that time the petitioner herein confronted him and again took his caste and abused him. The respondent No.2 therefore requested the respondent No.1 to take suitable action against the petitioner. Based on the above, the

¶30

¶31

CRL.P No. 1055 of 2017

¶32

respondent No.1 took up the investigation and filed charge sheet for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(x) of Act of 1989 & Section 506 of IPC. The Trial Court took cognizance of the said offences and issued process against the accused. Being aggrieved by the same, the present petition is filed.

¶33

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was the official superior of the respondent No.2, until he was posted as a Cluster Resource Coordinator. She submitted that there was an ongoing squabble between the petitioner as well as the respondent No.2 in respect of certain administrative matters and the respondent No.2 who had an axe to grind against the petitioner had lodged a false complaint. She submitted that even on a perusal of the complaint and further statement, the respondent No.2 has not even indicated to which caste the petitioner belonged, which was a requirement of Section 3 of the Act of 1989. She submits that a perusal of the complaint and further

¶34

6 - CRL.P No. 1055 of 2017

¶35

statement of the respondent No.2 does not show or even remotely indicate that the petitioner had abused the respondent No.2 taking his caste. She further submitted that to constitute an offence under Section 3(i)(x) of Act of 1989, the said offence must be committed in public view and should be done with the intention to insult a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. She submits that a bare perusal of the complaint and further statement of respondent No.2 does not indicate that the petitioner had insulted the respondent No.2 since he belonged to Scheduled caste. She contends that the issue is a result of an administrative matter, which is given a criminal twist by invoking the provisions of the Act of 1989. She tried to place on record certain administrative issues that led to heart burn between the petitioner and the respondent No2. Some of these documents indicate that certain complaints were lodged against respondent No.2 when he was employed as a subordinate of the petitioner and that the petitioner had escalated the issue to her higher ups. She therefore submits that this is a

¶36

¶37

CRL.P No. 1055 of 2017

¶38

clear case of an attempt to wreck vengeance against the petitioner by taking advantage of the penal provisions of Act of 1989.

¶39

Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has consistently remained absent though the case is listed on three dates of hearing. Even today there is no representation for respondent No.2. This Court did not have the advantage of the submissions of the respondent No.2.

¶40

Learned High Court Government Pleader for

¶41

respondent No.1 on the other hand submitted that respondent No.2 belonged to Scheduled Caste and was known to the petitioner. He submitted that the prosecution witness had recorded the statements about the alleged incident. He further submits that the incident occurred in public view and therefore offence under Section 3(1)(x) of Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (henceforth referred to

¶42

¶43

CRL.P No. 1055 of 2017

¶44

as the Act of 1989,) made out. He submits that the petitioner had threatened respondent No.2 of his life. Therefore, an offence punishable under Section 506 of IPC was made out.

¶45

I have considered the submissions made by the

¶46

learned counsel for the petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State.

¶47

The trial Court took cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989.

¶48

However, on the date of taking cognizance i.e. on 17.12.2016, Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, 1989 was substituted and the appropriate offence for which cognizance must have been taken was Section 3(1)(s) of the Act, 1989. Be that as it may, for an offence under Section 3 of the Act, 1989, to be attracted, the person committing such act should not be a person belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe. The opening words of Section 3 of Act, 1989 reads as follows:

¶49

¶50

CRL.P No. 1055 of 2017

¶51

"3. Punishments for offences of atrocities. (1) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe__”

¶52

The intention of incorporating this caveat in Section 3 of the Act, 1989 is not without any purpose. For an accused to know whether a person belongs to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe or not, he and such person should be known to each other. It is only then that the accused and the complainant would know the caste of each other. Therefore, it is incumbent upon every person lodging a report under Section 3 of the Act, 1989 to indicate the caste to which the accused belongs. In this regard it is appropriate to refer to judgment of the Apex Court in the case of "Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Others" reported in 2008 Part 12 SCC 531 where it is held that

¶53

"6. In the instant case, the allegation of Respondent 3 in the entire complaint is that on 275-2004, the appellant abused them with the name of their caste. According to the basic ingredients of Section 3(1)(x) of the Act, the complainant ought to

¶54

10 -

¶55

CRL.P No. 1055 of 2017

¶56

have alleged that the appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he (Respondent 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 appellant-accused was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate Respondent 3 in a place within public view. When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in the complaint, then permitting such a complaint to continue and to compel the appellant to face the rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse of process of law".

¶57

Admittedly, the alleged incident occurred in the office of Project Resource Coordinator, where accused and respondent No.2 and the Block Resource Coordinator were present. This definitely was not within "public view" and therefore, offence under Section 3(i)(s) of the Act, 1989 cannot be held to be committed by the petitioner. Even otherwise, perusal of the complaint does not indicate that the petitioner had any intention to insult or intimidate or

¶58

11 -

¶59

CRL.P No. 1055 of 2017

¶60

humiliate respondent No.2 in a public place or within public view. The respondent No.2 seems to have taken advantage of the penal provisions of the Act, 1989 and has lodged false prosecution against the petitioner.

¶61

In that view of the matter, continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner is not only wastage of time, but also would be a continued harassment of the petitioner.

¶62

In that view of the matter, petition is allowed .

¶63

Consequently, prosecution of the petition in Spl.C.C.No.536/2016 pending on the file of Court of the II Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge and Special Court for SC/ST Act Cases, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(x) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 506 of IPC is quashed.

¶64

Sd/-

¶65

JUDGE

¶66

KLY/GPG

Smt Uma R v. the State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Uma R v. the State

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

Farooq Khan Vs the State of Karnataka

C K Ansar Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Narasimhaiah Vs State of Karnataka

Sri H D Gangaraj Vs State by Commercial Street

N.K. Umesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Annaiappa Vs State of Karnataka