Allowed

Mr Suresh K S v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 May 2023WP/6747/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka allowed a writ petition seeking to quash FIR No.29/2020. The Court held that the complaint appeared to be filed to wreak vengeance under a political feud rather than a genuine caste-based grievance. Lack of physical injuries and absence of intent to humiliate served as key grounds for quashing.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of prosecution proceedings in Crime No.29/2020 initiated against the petitioners.

Mr Suresh K S Vs the State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF MAY, 2023

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.NATARAJ

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.6747 OF 2020 (GM-RES)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

1 . MR. SURESH K.S. S/O SONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KODIHALLI VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DIST., BANGALORE-562114

¶8

2 . MR. MURALI

¶9

S/O KANTHARAJ, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KODIHALLI VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DIST., BANGALORE-562114.

¶10

...PETITIONERS

¶11

(BY SRI. M.S. SHYAMSUNDAR, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. VANDANA P.L.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY TIRUMASHETTIHALLI P.S. HOSKOTE TALUK, BANGALORE RURAL DIST., REPRESENTED BY HCGP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

¶15

2 . NAVEEN K.S. S/O SHRI SAMPANGI, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDENT OF KODIHALLI VILLAGE, JADIGENAHALLI HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK, BENGALURU RURAL DIST., BANGALORE-562114.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI. R.D. RENUKARADHYA, HIGH COURT GOVERNMENT PLEADER FOR RESPONDENT NO.1; SRI. S. BALAKRISHNAN, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.2)

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 PRAYING TO DECLARE AS ILLEGAL THE COMPLAINT AND REGISTRATION OF CASE IN FIR/CRIME NO.029/2020 OF TIRUMASHETTIHALLI POLICE STATION, THIRUMASHETTIHALLI CIRCLE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT FOR ALLEGED OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 327, 504, 506 AND SECTION 149 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(R) AND SEC 3(1)(S) OF SCST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ORDINANCE ACT, 2014, PENDING ON THE FILE OF 2^ND ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, BANGALORE RURAL DIST. BANGALORE, VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ANNEXUREB OF THE WRIT PETITION AND ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDER ON 27.03.2023 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶20

¶21

ORDER

¶22

The petitioners/accused Nos.3 and 2 have sought for quashing of Crime No.29/2020 registered by the respondent No.1 on the basis of information furnished by the respondent No.2 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 327, 504, 506 and 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014, pending trial before the II Additional District and Sessions Court, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru.

¶23

An action for prosecution of petitioners was launched by the respondent No.2, who furnished information to the respondent No.1 on 09.03.2020 that at 10.45 a.m., when he and other villagers had gone to see the Government pond, accused Nos.1 and 2 were also present. The accused No.2 started abusing the respondent No.2 and picked a crowbar to assault him. Some villagers allegedly intervened and separated them. The accused

¶24

¶25

No.3 went to the spot in his car along with accused Nos.4, 5, 6, 7 and others. The respondent No.2 was videographing the incident. The accused No.3 got down from the car and held the respondent No.2 by his collar and abused him taking the name of his caste and snatched the mobile phone. He exhorted his supporters to kill the respondent No.2 at the spot. The accused No.4 assaulted respondent No.2 with a knife, while accused No.2 assaulted him with a crowbar. Other accused also assaulted him. The villagers who were present, stopped the accused from assaulting the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2 escaped and took shelter in the house of one Nagaraj. He therefore, requested the police to provide him protection and take suitable action against the accused.

¶26

Based on this information, the respondent No.1 registered Crime No.29/2020 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 327, 504, 506 and 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of the

¶27

¶28

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance, 2014.

¶29

The accused Nos.2 and 3 being aggrieved by the First Information Report registered by the respondent No.1 in Crime No.29/2020 have filed this petition to quash all further proceedings.

¶30

The learned Senior counsel for the

¶31

petitioners/accused Nos.2 and 3 submitted that the information lodged by the respondent No.2 is only to wreak vengeance against the petitioners due to political rivalry. He contended that the brother of petitioner No.1/accused No.3 was a member of Legislative Assembly, while the petitioner No.1 was the President of Sericulture and Farmers Service Co-operative Bank Limited, Hosakote and also a Director of Bengaluru District Central Cooperative Bank Limited. He claimed that the respondent No.2 is from a rival political faction and is sponsored by them. He further contended that the respondent No.2 is a habitual complainant, furnishing false information taking

¶32

¶33

advantage of the provisions of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, many of which turned out to be false. He contends that the respondent No.2 is one of the accused in Crime No.30/2020 on the basis of an information lodged by Manjunath on 09.03.2020, who is arraigned as accused No.4 in the present case. He further submits that the respondent No.2 had earlier lodged Crime No.189/2017 on 16.12.2017 against Madhukumar, Murali (petitioner No.2 herein), Girish, Manjunath (accused No.4 herein), Jaipal, Narayanaswamy for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He had also lodged information which resulted in Crime No.135/2018 on 02.08.2018 against Umesh, Manjunath (accused No.4 herein), Narayanaswamy for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 506, 511 read with Section 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. The learned Senior counsel

¶34

¶35

therefore, contended that the respondent No.2 is in the habit of launching false prosecution against the persons who were inimically ill-disposed towards him. Soon after the petitioners filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail in Crime No.29/2020, the respondent No.2 lodged another case on 11.03.2020 against the petitioners herein for the offence punishable under Sections 225, 225B, 353 of IPC, to ensure that the petitioners are arrested. He therefore, submits that the instant case too is concocted by the respondent No.2 and the respondent No.2 has misused the process of law and Court in launching a false prosecution. He further contends that the offence was allegedly committed on 09.03.2020 at 10.45 a.m. However, the respondent No.2 approached the police at 6.30 p.m. on 09.03.2020 and did not explain the reason for the delay in lodging complaint. He therefore, contends that this and the conduct of the respondent No.2 shows that the case lodged by the respondent No.3 was false. He thus contends that the case on hand falls within more than one category of cases requiring intervention by this Court

¶36

¶37

as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Haryana and others vs. Bajanlal [1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335]. He contends that if the accused carried knives and crowbar and if they tried to assault the respondent No.2, there must have been some injury on the respondent No.2 to justify invocation of Section 323, 324, 327 of IPC. However, he contends that there was not even scratch on the body of the respondent No.2 and therefore, the respondent No.2 in collusion with the respondent No.1 have launched a false prosecution.

¶38

In support of his contention that delay in giving information should be satisfactorily explained, the learned Senior counsel relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Thulia Kali vs. The State of Tamil Nadu [1972 Crl.L.J. 1296] . He also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Gorige Pentaiah vs.

¶39

State of Andhra Pradesh and others [(2008) 12 SCC 531] and contends that the respondent No.2 did not even mention the caste to which the petitioners belonged and

¶40

¶41

therefore, an offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was not attracted. He further relied upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Daya Bhatnagar and others vs. State [(2004) DLT 915] and contended that for an offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, three requirements are essential. (a) there should be intentional insult or intimidation by a person not being a member of the SC or ST (b) the insult must be with an intent to humiliate the member of the SC or ST (c) that the incident must occur in any place within the public view. He therefore, submits that even on a bare perusal of the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2, there is no indication that the petitioners intended to insult or intimidate the respondent No.2 to humiliate him. He relied upon the judgment of a Co-ordinate bench of this Court in Crl.P.No.3597/2022, where this Court was considering the question whether the abuses in a public place or place of public view would attract the provisions of the Atrocities Act. This Court after summarising the law on the point held

¶42

¶43

that mere utterances against a person belonging Scheduled Caste in a place within public view does not attract the offences under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act. He therefore, prayed that the proceedings in the case be set at naught by quashing it.

¶44

Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent No.1 submitted that the case is still at the initial stage of investigation and therefore, this Court should not go into the merit or demerits of the case

¶45

at this stage. He submits that the petitioners may be directed to participate in the investigation and liberty may be reserved to them to challenge the charge-sheet, in case it is filed.

¶46

The learned counsel for the respondent No.2, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioners are habitual offenders who engage in criminal activities day-in and day-out. He submitted that case in Crime No.2/2023 was registered against the petitioner No.1 on the basis of

¶47

¶48

information furnished by Abhijith and Crime No.28/2019 was registered against the petitioner Nos.1, 2 and others on the information furnished by L. Karthik for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 307, 504, 149 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. He therefore submits that no lenience be shown to the petitioners. The learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

¶49

Swaran Singh and others vs. State through Standing Counsel and another [(2008) 8 SCC 435] and contended that, this Court cannot see whether the allegations in the F.I.R. are correct or not. He contends that considering the allegations in the F.I.R., an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act was prima-facie made out against the accused. He also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramveer Upadhyay and another vs. State of U.P. and another [(2022) SCC

¶50

Online SC 484] and contended that the criminal proceedings cannot be nipped in the bud by exercise of

¶51

¶52

jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. only because the complaint is lodged by a political rival. He submitted that there is no justification for interference under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. He contended that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma vs. The State of Uttarakhand and another [(2020) 9 SCR 593] is inapplicable to the facts of this case.

¶53

I have considered the submissions made by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioners and learned High Court Government Pleader as well as the learned counsel for the respondent No.2. I have also perused the records.

¶54

It is not in dispute that the case in Crime No.189/2017 registered on the basis of information furnished by the respondent No.2 against the petitioner No.2 and others discloses that the respondent No.2 had politically affiliated. The information provided by the respondent No.2 in Crime No.29/2020 discloses a different set of facts while the counter complaint lodged by the

¶55

¶56

accused No.4 (Manjunath) in Crime no.30/2020 against the respondent No.2 discloses a different version as to how the offence allegedly occurred on 09.03.2020. A perusal of the First Information Report drawn in the instant case in Crime No.29/2020 shows no obvious intention or motive to abuse or assault the respondent No.2. the respondent No.2 merely stated that when he went to see the Government pond, the petitioner No.2 abused him and attempted to assault him with a crowbar. The petitioner No.1 is stated to have arrived at the spot in his car and held respondent No.2 by his collar and abused him by his caste and exhorted the other accused to kill him.

¶57

Except a stray statement that the petitioner No.1 took the caste of the respondent No.2, there is no other allegation to indicate that the petitioner No.1 took the name of his caste with an intention to insult him. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma (supra) held as follows:-

¶58

"10. The Act was enacted to improve the social economic conditions of the vulnerable

¶59

¶60

sections of the society as they have been subjected to various offences such as indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have been deprived of life and property as well. The object of the Act is thus to punish the violators who inflict indignities, humiliations and harassment and commit the offence as defined under Section 3 of the Act. The Act is thus intended to punish the acts of the upper caste against the vulnerable section of the society for the reason that they belong to a particular community.

¶61

xxxxxxxx

¶62

12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as “1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and 2) in any place within public view”.

¶63

13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult

¶64

¶65

or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio-economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste."

¶66

A perusal of Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act indicates that a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe, if he is humiliated or insulted intentionally in any

¶67

¶68

place within public view, such insult or intimidation or humiliation is treated as an offence against such person. Mere calling a person by his caste may not ipso facto result in insulting him or humiliating him unless such calling is coupled with acts with an intent to humiliate him. Illustrations of such humiliation are (i) when a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is treated differently by any officer of the State due to his/her caste (ii) when a person belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe is forced to do inhuman/menial work or scavenging etc., merely because of his/her caste (iii) when he/she is not allowed access to public office/utilities/facilities or participate in public events due to his/her caste (iv) any form of indignity, humiliation or harassment or deprival of his/her life and property only due to his/her caste.

¶69

The pre-requisite for an offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is "an intent to insult or intimidate and with an intent to

¶70

¶71

humiliate ", which is clearly absent in the present case. The respondent No.2 has also not given out the full details of the events that occurred on 09.03.2020 but he claimed that when he had gone to see the Government pond, the accused attempted to assault him without any provocation, and that petitioner No.1 held him by his collar. The respondent No.2 has therefore, not placed on record the events as it occurred on 09.03.2020. It therefore, appears that a political feud is given a casteist touch by the respondent No.2. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

¶72

Union of India vs. State of Maharasthra and others [(2020) 4 SCC 761 reviewed the directions issued in Dr. Subhash Kashinath Mahajan vs. State of Maharashtra and another [(2018) 6 SCC 454] and held that if there is a false and unsubstantiated F.I.R., powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. can be invoked. It held that,

¶73

"52. There is no presumption that the members of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes may misuse the provisions of law as a class

¶74

¶75

and it is not resorted to by the members of the upper castes or the members of the elite caste. For lodging a false report, it cannot be said that the caste of a person is the cause. It is due to the human failing and not due to the caste factor. Caste is not attributable to such an act. On the other hand, members of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes due to backwardness hardly muster the courage to lodge even a first information report, much less, a false one. In case it is found to be false/unsubstantiated, it may be due to the faulty investigation or for other various reasons including human failings irrespective of caste factor. There may be certain cases which may be false that can be a ground for interference by the Court, but the law cannot be changed due to such misuse. In such a situation, it can be taken care of in proceeding under Section 482 CrPC."

¶76

Now coming to the question whether there was any material to substantiate an offence under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 327 of IPC, there is not even a whisper in the complaint that the respondent No.2 had suffered any injury. He has also not undergone any

¶77

¶78

treatment at any hospital. Therefore, there is no basis for an offences under Sections 323, 324, 504, 506, 327 of IPC.

¶79

In view of the fact that the respondent No.2 has lodged two complaints in Crime No.189/2017 and 135/2018 against the petitioner No.2,it gives an impression that the present complaint is one filed to wreak vengeance by misusing the process of law and Courts. In that view of the matter, the prosecution of the petitioners in Crime No.29/2020 deserves to be set at naught.

¶80

Consequently, this petition is allowed . The impugned prosecution of the petitioners in Crime No.29/2020 registered by the respondent No.1 on the basis of the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 is quashed.

¶81

Sd/JUDGE

¶82

PMR

Mr Suresh K S v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr Suresh K S 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

Mr Nayeem Ahmed Vs Col Hariprasad

Smt. Elizabath Mari, Vs S.M. Ahmed

N M Shakeena Vs H G Madhu

M/S Mahendra Watch Company Vs Sri.M.v.Ramachandrasa

Mr Suresh K S Vs the State of Karnataka

N Narasimha Murthy Vs State of Karnataka