Allowed

Mallikarjun and Anr. v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Karnataka HC10 Jan 2024CRL.P/201554/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court quashed criminal proceedings against two police constables in a Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes case. The court held that since they were exonerated on merits in a prior departmental enquiry, continuing the criminal trial would be an abuse of process.

What did the court decide?

Criminal proceedings in special case SC/ST No.193/2020 insofar as it relates to petitioner-accused Nos. 1 and 2 are quashed.

Mallikarjun and Anr. Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr. — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC-K:521 CRL.P No. 201554 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,

¶4

KALABURAGI BENCH

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶8

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 201554 OF 2023 (482-)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

MALLIKARJUN AND ANR S/O KALLAPPA, AGE. 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION POLICE,

¶11

SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR

¶12

Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR Date: 2024.01.17 01:00:52 -0800

¶13

ASHOK S/O MANIKAPPA, AGE. 32 YEARS, OCCUPATION POLICE, BOTH OF RESIDENCE OF CHINTAKI POLICE STATION, TALUKA AURAD (B), DISTRICT BIDAR.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. AMARESHWAR S RAWOOR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANR THROUGH CHINTAKI POLICE STATION, DISTRICT BIDAR, ITS REPRESENTED BY

¶18

2 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:521 CRL.P No. 201554 of 2023

¶19

ADDL. SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI.

¶20

VAIJINATH S/O SIDRAM SAKHARE, AGE. 67 YEARS, OCCUPATION COOLIE, RESIDENCE OF BARADAPUR VILLAGE, TALUKA AURAD (B), DISTRICT BIDAR.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SMT. ANITA REDDY, HCGP FOR R1)

¶23

CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C. BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO QUASH THE FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN SPL. CASE (SC/ST) NO.193/2020 (CRIME NO.32/19 CHINTAKI PS BIDAR DIST. OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/SEC. 323, 342, 448, 504, 506, R/W 34 OF IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) OF SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT 1989) FILE ON PENDING BEFORE THE ADDL. DIST. AND SESSION JUDGE AT BIDAR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶24

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

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:521 CRL.P No. 201554 of 2023

¶26

ORDER

¶27

The petitioner has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 323, 342, 355, 448, 504, 506 R/W Section 34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'SC/ST (PA) Act' for short), alleging that when the complainant-CW.1 was in his house, accused Nos. 1 and 2, who were the police constables came and enquired the complainant about the whereabouts of his son and when the complainant stated that he does not know the whereabouts of his son, accused Nos. 1 and 2 assaulted the complainant on his back with their hands, causing injury. Thereafter, they took CWs.1, 4 and 5 in a jeep to the Police Station and detained them illegally and accused Nos.1 to 3, abused the complainant in filthy language and asked him to disclose the whereabouts of his son, who had taken the girl, and accused No.2 assaulted the complainant on his head with his hands, causing injury and abused him in filthy language.

¶28

The learned Magistrate, after accepting the charge sheet, took cognizance of the aforesaid offences and issued summons. Taking exception to the same, this petition is filed.

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused Nos.1 and 2 submits that on similar set of charges, departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner-accused Nos.1 and 2 and the same resulted in exoneration of accused Nos.1 and 2

¶30

4 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:521 CRL.P No. 201554 of 2023

¶31

on merits. Hence, he submits that the standard of proof which is higher in criminal case, the continuation of the criminal proceedings will be an abuse of process of law. In support, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashoo Surendranath Tewari vs. Deputy Superintendent of Police, EOW, CBI and another reported in (2020) 9 SCC 636 and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Mr. A.L.Jayaramu vs. State of Karnataka and others (Writ Petition No. 19700/2018, D.D.27.07.2021).

¶32

On the other hand, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1-State submits that, merely because the petitioner has been exonerated in the departmental enquiry, it would not lead to exoneration or acquittal in criminal cases. In support, he places reliance on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) vs. Ajay Kumar Tyagi reported in 2012 (9) SCC 685.

¶33

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would reiterate the submissions made by the learned High Court Government Pleader.

¶34

Considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶35

Admittedly, against the similar set of charges, departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioneraccused Nos.1 and 2.

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:521 CRL.P No. 201554 of 2023

¶37

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal (2011) 3

¶38

SCC 581 has laid the principle which reads thus:

¶39

"38. The ratio which can be culled out from these decisions can broadly be stated as follows:

¶40

(i) Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution can be launched simultaneously;

¶41

(ii) Decision in adjudication proceedings is not necessary before initiating criminal prosecution;

¶42

(iii) Adjudication proceedings and criminal proceedings are independent in nature to each other;

¶43

(iv) The finding against the person facing prosecution in the adjudication proceedings is not binding on the proceeding for criminal prosecution;

¶44

(v) Adjudication proceedings by the Enforcement Directorate is not prosecution by a competent court of law to attract the provisions of Article 20(2) of the Constitution or Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure;

¶45

(vi) The finding in the adjudication proceedings in favour of the person facing trial for identical violation will depend upon the nature of finding. If the exoneration in adjudication proceedings is on technical ground and not on merit, prosecution may continue; and

¶46

(vii) In case of exoneration, however, on merits where the allegation is found to be not sustainable at all and the person held innocent, criminal prosecution on the same set of facts and circumstances cannot be allowed to continue, the underlying principle being the higher standard of proof in criminal cases."

¶47

The Hon'ble Supreme Court consisting of three learned Judges in the case of the State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) without reference to the decision in the case of

¶48

6 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:521 CRL.P No. 201554 of 2023

¶49

Radheshyam Kejriwal (supra) has held that the High Court misread the judgment in P S Rajya -vs- State of Bihar ((1996) 9 SCC 1) and exoneration in departmental proceeding ipso facto would not lead to exoneration or acquittal in a criminal case. It was further noted that the decision of P S Rajya case which was rendered by the Bench consisting of two learned Judge was distinguished in a subsequent decision in the case of State -vs- L. Krishnamohan which was again by a two Judges and accordingly held that the decision in P S Rajya was not an authority for the presumption that exoneration in departmental proceeding ipso facto would lead to a judgment of acquittal in a criminal trial.

¶50

The Hon'ble Apex Court in Hyder Consulting (UK) Ltd. v. State of Orissa, (2015) 2 SCC 189 has held that a decision can be said to be given per incuriam when the court of record has acted in ignorance of any previous decision of its own, or a subordinate court has acted in ignorance of a decision of the court of record. Therefore the decision of State (NCT of Delhi) which has not taken into account and consideration of the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Radheshyam is said to be per incuriam.

¶51

The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Govindanaik G Kalaghatigi -vs- West Patent Press Co. Ltd. has held that, where there is a conflict between two decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of the same Bench strength, it is latter of the decision that would prevail. The decision of the Bench consisting of three Judges in the case of

¶52

7 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:521 CRL.P No. 201554 of 2023

¶53

Ashoo Surendranath Tiwari would prevail over the decision in the case of State (NCT of Delhi) (supra) rendered by consisting of three Judges which is a latter judgment. Though the decision of the State (NCT of Delhi) was unanimous and whereas in the case of Radheshyam Kejriwal it was a majority of 2:1, the total strength of the Bench that they decided the case is deemed to be the Bench strength of that decision despite dissenting opinion as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Fragrances -vs- Union of India (2018) 11 SCC 305.

¶54

In the instant case, the departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner-accused Nos.1 and 2 and the same resulted in exoneration on merits. Hence, in view of the ratio enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court, the impugned criminal proceeding cannot be continued against the petitioner, who has been exonerated on identical charges in the departmental enquiry, the underlying principle being higher standard of proof in criminal cases.

¶55

In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered view that the petitioner having been exonerated in the departmental enquiry on merits, it would be an abuse of process of law to continue the criminal proceedings against the petitioner, since the probability of his conviction is remote and bleak. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

i) The criminal petition is allowed.

¶58

8 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:521 CRL.P No. 201554 of 2023

¶59

ii) The impugned proceedings in Special Case (SC)ST) No.193/2020, pending on the file of Addl. District and Sessions Judge at Bidar, insofar as it relates to the petitioner-accused Nos.1 and 2 is hereby quashed.

¶60

Sd/JUDGE

¶61

SSP List No.: 19 Sl No.: 5

Mallikarjun and Anr. v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mallikarjun and Anr. v. the State of Karnataka and Anr.

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

Sri. S.U. Pai-Co-Operative Credit Vs the Deputy Registrar of Co-Operative

Srinivas S/O Nookaraj Vs State of Karnataka

Yallappa Ramappa Sonnad Vs the Land Tribunal

M/S Bagamane Developers Private Limited Vs Karnataka State Pollution Control Board

Baladev Nayak and Ors. Vs the State of Karnataka and Anr.

Mudukappa S/O Rangappa Marabannavar Vs the Deputy Commissioner