Allowed

G Pratap Kumar v. the State by Halasurgate Police

Karnataka HC9 Feb 2023WP/5052/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka quashed an FIR registered for offences under SC/ST Act and IPC alleging false caste representation. The Court held that since the impugned order by DCVC cancelling the certificate was set aside by Appellate Authority for lack of jurisdiction, continuing the investigation amounts to abuse of process of law.

What did the court decide?

The impugned FIR in Cr. No.0006/2019 registered by Halasurgate Police is quashed.

G Pratap Kumar Vs the State by Halasurgate Police — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - WP No. 5052 of 2019

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 5052 OF 2019 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

G.PRATAP KUMAR, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, S/O. LATE. GOVINDAPPA, R/AT NO.142, 7TH CROSS, KRISHNAIAHANAPALYA, INDRANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 038.

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SMT. SADHANA DESAI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE STATE BY HALASURGATE POLICE, CORPORATION CIR, CUBBONPETE, NAGARATHPETE, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 002. REPRESENTED BY SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560 001.

¶13

GIRISH, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, PSI, D.C.R.E.CELL, BENGALURU, BENGALURU CITY, KARNATAKA-560 002.

¶14

…RESPONDENTS

¶15

(BY SRI. VINAYAKA V.S., HCGP FOR R1; SRI. C. JAGADISH ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶16

¶17

WP No. 5052 of 2019

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF INDIAN CONSTITUTION READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1973 PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.0006/2019 DATED 8.1.2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE LEARNED SESSIONS JUDGE, CCH-71 BENGALURU CITY BENGALURU FILED BY THE R-1 AS PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.

¶19

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

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner was issued with a caste certificate, by the Tahsildar concerned, certifying that, he belongs to Schedule Tribe (Maleru Community) Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes And Other Backward Classes (Reservation Of Appointment Etc) Act, 1990 9for short 'the Act'). Thereafter, the validity certificate was issued by the District Caste Verification Committee (for short 'the DCVC') on 30.11.1999, and the complaint was filed against the petitioner stating that the petitioner by falsely representing that he belongs to Schedule Tribe (Maleru Community) has obtained the certificate.

¶22

The complaint filed was returned stating that the petitioner has to file an appeal before the Tribal Welfare Department under Section 4(D) of the Act. The complainant approached the DCVC and the DCVC cancelled the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner. In light of the order passed by the DCVC, the FIR was registered against the petitioner for the offence under Section 3(1)(q) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

¶23

¶24

WP No. 5052 of 2019

¶25

Attorcities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014 and Sections 198, 420 and 196 of IPC.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the order passed by the DCVC, canceling the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner, is one without jurisdiction and the said order passed by the DCVC was challenged before the Appellate Authority and the same was allowed, and in view of the same, the continuation of the investigation will be an abuse of process of law.

¶27

Sri.C.Jagadish, learned Special Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2 submits that the petitioner though belongs to Bhajantri Community, by falsely representing that he belongs to the Maleru Community has obtained the false caste certificate, and the FIR registered does not warrant any interference.

¶28

I have examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶29

The order passed by the DCVC, canceling the caste certificate was impugned before the Appellate Authority, and the Appellate Authority by order dated 19.01.2019 has set aside the order stating that, the DCVC has no jurisdiction/authority to review its own order.

¶30

¶31

WP No. 5052 of 2019

¶32

The FIR was registered on the basis of the order passed by the DCVC and the said order having been set aside by the Appellate Authority, the continuation of the investigation will be an abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶33

ORDER

¶34

i. Petition is allowed.

¶35

ii. The impugned FIR in Cr. No.0006/2019 registered by the Halasurgate Police Station, Corporation Circle, Cubbonpete is hereby quashed.

¶36

iii. It is needless to state that the respondent No.2 is at liberty to take appropriate action, in the event, the caste certificate issued in favour of the petitioner is cancelled in a manner known to law.

¶37

Sd/JUDGE

¶38

RKA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32

G Pratap Kumar v. the State by Halasurgate Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

G Pratap Kumar v. the State by Halasurgate Police

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr a v Babin Vs State of Karnataka

Iskcon Charities Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Sarasamma Vs Sri M Narasappa Reddy

M/S Sai Srushti Estates Vs Smt Rathnamma

Sri G v Sathish Reddy Vs Sri P K Somashekara Reddy

Sarasamma Vs Sri M Narasappa Reddy