Dismissed

Zakeer @ Zakeerhusen v. the State through Cadachan Ps and Anr.

Karnataka HC10 Sept 2024CRL.P/200663/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, in a criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., dismissed the prayer to quash criminal proceedings. The court found that the petitioner obstructed an official and insulted a reserved category member, rendering the case a fit one for trial.

What did the court decide?

Petition to quash the FIR and charge sheet in Special Case SC/ST No. 59/2023 dismissed.

Zakeer @ Zakeerhusen Vs the State through Cadachan Ps and… — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-K:6791 CRL.P No. 200663 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200663 OF 2024

¶9

(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))

¶10

BETWEEN:

¶11

ZAKEER @ ZAKEERHUSEN S/O BASEERSAB MANIYAR, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O DEVARA NIMBARAGI, TQ. CHADACHAN, DIST. VIJAYAPURA.

¶12

…PETITIONER

¶13

(BY SMT. SWATI M. N., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANJU S. KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

Digitally signed by KHAJAAMEEN L MALAGHAN Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶16

THE STATE THROUGH CHADACHAN P.S DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101. BY THE SPECIAL PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, KALABURAGI BENCH, KALABURAGI-01.

¶17

VISHWANAH S/O PANDU RATHOD, AGE: 44 YEARS, OCC: GOVT. SERVANT (PDO), R/O PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER (PDO), GRAM PANCHAYAT DEVAR NIMBARGI, A/P CHANEGANVA, TQ. CHADACHAN, AND DIST. VIJAYAPURA-586101.

¶18

…RESPONDENTS

¶19

(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. R. S. LAGALI., ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶20

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6791 CRL.P No. 200663 of 2024

¶21

THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR, COMPLAINT THE CHARGE SHEET IN SPL CASE SC/ST NO. 59/2023 (CRIME NO. 85/2023) REGISTERED BY THE CHADACHAN POLICE STATION, DIST VIJAYAPUR FOR THE OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 353, 504 506 IPC AND UNDER SECTION 3(1)(R)(S) OF THE SC/ST PA ACT 2015, PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED II ADDL. DIST AND SESSION AND SPL. JUDGE VIJAYAPUR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶22

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN)

¶26

This petition is filed under by the petitioner/accused

¶27

under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the criminal proceedings in Spl.Case(SC/ST) No.59/2023 arising out of Crime No.85/2023 registered by Chadchan Police Station, Vijayapura District for the offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 and 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC/ST(PA) Act, 2015 ( herein after referred to as ‘the Special Act’ for brevity).

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6791 CRL.P No. 200663 of 2024

¶29

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

¶30

learned High Court Government Pleader for the State and learned counsel for the respondent No.2.

¶31

The case of the prosecution is that a complaint was filed by respondent No.2 to the police on 18.10.2023. He is working as PDO in Devar Nimbarai Village Panchayat. He alleged that on 18.10.2023 at about 11:30 a.m. the petitioner, who is a member of Village Panchayat came to his office and obstructed him from discharging his official duty. The petitioner asked the complainant as to why he has made payment to one Shrishail. Then, he has obstructed to his work and also abused him in filthy language by taking the caste name, thereby insulted the member of the SC/ST community. The other Panchayat members rescued the complainant and sent out the accused. After registering the FIR, the police investigated the matter and filed the charge sheet, which is under challenge.

¶32

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶33

contended that the petitioner is also a Village Panchayat

¶34

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6791 CRL.P No. 200663 of 2024

¶35

member and a public servant. He has asked the respondent No.2, as to why he has made payment to one Shrishail. That itself does not constitute the offense punishable under Section 353 of IPC and he has never abused the complainant by taking his caste name. The same was inserted in the complaint in order to register the case against the petitioner and falsely implicate him under the Special Act. He never abused the complainant in filthy language. The incident took place in the Panchayat Office. Therefore, the Special Act would not get attracted. Hence, he prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings.

¶36

Per contra, learned High Court Government Pleader and learned counsel for the respondent No.2 have seriously objected the petition contending that even if the petitioner is a public servant, he cannot obstruct the other public servant, which also amounts to the offence punishable under Section 353 of IPC. Taking the caste name and abusing is nothing but insulting the members of the SC/ST community, which attracts Section 3(1)(r)(s) of

¶37

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6791 CRL.P No. 200663 of 2024

¶38

the Special Act. Hence, they prayed for dismissing the petition.

¶39

Having heard the arguments and perused the

¶40

records, would go to show that the petitioner is a Panchayat member and respondent No.2 is a PDO, working in the Village Panchayat office as a public servant. On 18.10.2023, the petitioner came to the office and obstructed the complainant from doing his official duty, questioning him as to why he has released the fund to one Shrishail. At the of the incident, other Panchayat members were also present, apart from the CW-4, the President and

¶41

they have supported the version of the complainant. Though, some insertion was made in the complaint, that itself cannot be ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. The further statement of the complainant and the statement of the witnesses, who were present in the office at the time of incident, all clearly reveals that the petitioner obstructed to the official duty of the complainant, abused him in filthy language by taking his

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:6791 CRL.P No. 200663 of 2024

¶43

caste name, which attracts Section 353 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Special Act.

¶44

That apart, the petitioner being a public

¶45

servant, he cannot obstruct another public servant while doing official work. The complainant is a PDO. Therefore, in pursuit of the very provision of Section 353 of IPC, which says whoever obstructs the public servant from discharging his official duty is an offence. It never says the person must be an individual or a private person to obstruct the public servant. Therefore, the contention of the petition counsel cannot be accepted.

¶46

Another contention of learned counsel for the

¶47

petitioner is that the offence is committed within the office. The office is a Village Panchayat office, which is a place where other Panchayat members, who are the representative of the public were present, when the alleged incident took place. They have rescued the complainant by sending out the petitioner. All their statements clearly reveal the offence committed by the petitioner.

¶48

¶49

NC: 2024:KHC-K:6791 CRL.P No. 200663 of 2024

¶50

Such being the case, it is not a fit case for quashing the criminal proceedings at this stage. Accordingly, following order:

¶51

ORDER

¶52

Petition is dismissed.

¶53

Sd/(K NATARAJAN) JUDGE

¶54

NJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 CT:SI

Zakeer @ Zakeerhusen v. the State through Cadachan Ps and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Zakeer @ Zakeerhusen v. the State through Cadachan Ps and Anr.

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

Shashikanth S/O Ramchadrabedge Vs Nagendra S/O Shankar Rao Kadappa

M Pradeep and Ors. Vs State of Karnataka and Anr.

Manikantha Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri.Golk Sardar S/O Pullion Sardar Vs Kajol W/O Samaresh Paul

Dnyaneshwar Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Srimant@ Shreemanth Vs the State