Allowed

Arun Kumar @ Vikas.B v. Vs State by Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Mar 2024CRL.P/2390/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners sought quashing of an FIR alleging caste-based abuse and threats against a hostel resident. As the Court had already quashed proceedings against accused No.1 for lack of merit, this petition was disposed of on parity and the FIR was quashed.

What did the court decide?

FIR in Crime No.20/2021 quashed insofar as it relates to petitioner-accused Nos.2 and 3; I.A.No.1/2024 disposed of.

Arun Kumar @ Vikas.B v Vs State by Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:11954 CRL.P No. 2390 of 2024

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF MARCH, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION No. 2390 OF 2024 (482)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

ARUN KUMAR @ VIKAS. B. V., AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, S/O LATE B.V. VENKATESH, R/AT No.1192/A, BALAKRISHNA RAO ROAD, CHAMARAJAPURAM ROAD, MYSORE-570005.

¶9

Digitally signed by R HEMALATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SURESH, S/O MARISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, PRESENTLY R/AT OUT HOUSE No.1192/A, BALAKRISHNA RAO ROAD, CHAMARAJAPURAM ROAD, MYSORE-570 005.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI MADESH V. M., ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

STATE BY KARNATAKA, BY SARASWATHIPURAM POLICE STATION, REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶15

SMT. NANDINI M., D/O LATE MALLANNA,

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:11954 CRL.P No. 2390 of 2024

¶17

AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, NOW R/AT GOVERNMENT PROFESSIONAL GIRLS HOSTEL, OPPOSITE TO BANK OF BARODA, BOGADI 2^ND STAGE, MYSURU CITY, MYSURU-570009. PRESENT ADDRESS: NEW STREET, KAMMAGERE, KOLLEGALA TALUK, CHAMARAJANAGAR PALYA HOBLI-571443. …RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 22.03.2024 NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH)

¶19

THIS CRL.P. IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.PC PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT IN CR.No.20/2021 (ANNEXURE-A) REGISTERED BY THE SARASWATHIPURAM POLICE STATION, PENDING ON THE FILE OF VI ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT, MYSURU CITY FOR OFFENCE P/U/S 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF THE SC AND ST (POA) 1989 AND SEC. 341, 363, 354, 448, 504, 506 AND 34 OF IPC, MARKED AS (ANNEXURE-A AND B).

¶20

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

¶21

ORDER

¶22

Learned HCGP accepts notice for respondent No.1.

¶23

Notice to respondent No.2 is dispensed with.

¶24

The petitioners - accused Nos.1 and 2 are sought to be prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Sections 341, 363, 354, 448, 504 and 506 of IPC.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:11954 CRL.P No. 2390 of 2024

¶27

The case of the prosecution is that, the petitioners accused Nos.2 and 3 along accused No.1 visited the hostel in which the second respondent was residing, and forcibly entered into the room and asked her to vacate the hostel room, abused her in filthy language with reference to her caste, and threatened her with dire consequences.

¶28

The accused No.1 had approached this Court in Criminal Petition No.2931/2021, and this vide order dated 29.08.2023 quashed the proceedings against accused No.1 by observing as follows:

¶29

"The petitioner-accused No.1 is working as the Assistant Director in the office of the Department of Social Welfare, Padavaralli and is the competent Authority to inspect the hostel in which the informant was residing. The petitioner-accused No.1 had issued a notice dated 17.2.2021 to the warden of the hostel calling upon her to give explanation as to why action should not be taken for the illegalities committed by her and the very next day, the FIR was lodged by the informant, which clearly infers that the FIR was lodged at the instance of the Warden of the hostel with an ulterior motive to wreak vengeance and with revengeful intent for having issued the notice."

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:11954 CRL.P No. 2390 of 2024

¶32

Therefore, this petition also requires to be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid order to maintain parity.

¶33

4. Accordingly, I pass the following:

¶34

ORDER

¶35

i) The Criminal Petition is allowed.

¶36

ii) The impugned FIR in Crime No.20/2021 registered by the respondent No.1 - Saraswathipuram Police Station, pending on the file of 6^th Additional District and Sessions Judge at Mysuru, insofar it relates to petitioner - accused Nos.2 and 3 is hereby quashed.

¶37

In view of the disposal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2024 does not survive for consideration and accordingly disposed of.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

JUDGE

¶40

AP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3

Arun Kumar @ Vikas.B v. Vs State by Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arun Kumar @ Vikas.B v. Vs State by 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

Smt C a Shantha Vs Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company Ltd.

M/S. Siddhi Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

Sri R S Chandrashekar, Vs Tahsildar

Thippeswamy @ Sanna Thippeswamy Vs Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited

R. Raghupathi Gowda Vs the Karnataka State Transport Authority

Hotel Royal Inn Vs the Commissioner of Excise in Karnataka