Allowed

Narasimha Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Mar 2024CRL.P/4075/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. sought to quash an FIR and proceedings initiated under IPC and SC/ST (POA) Act. The Court held that since the dispute arose from a civil suit over property possession and the incident occurred at a private residence, the allegations did not establish an offence under the Act. The comp.

What did the court decide?

The criminal petition is allowed and the FIR in Crime No.148/2018 is hereby quashed.

Narasimha Reddy Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:12041 CRL.P No. 4075 of 2018

¶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 SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶6

CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4075 OF 2018

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

NARASIMHA REDDY

¶9

S/O SUBBA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, ADVOCATE BY PROFESSION, RESIDENT OF NO.1/3, "SAHYADRI", FLAT NO 202, 2^ND FLOOR, 8^TH CROSS, MATHIKERE EXTN., BENGALURU - 560054

¶10

Digitally signed by NARAYANAPPA LAKSHMAMMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

SRINIVAS C R S/O RAMAPPA D H AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS ADVOCATE BY PROFESSION, RESIDENT OF NO.7, 10^TH CROSS, 3^RD MAIN, BRINDAVAN NAGAR, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU-560054.

¶12

SMT. VANAJAKSHI M W/O MADHUSUDAN M S (ADVOCATE) AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS HOUSEWIFE, RESIDENT OF NO.291/6, 2^ND CROSS, 9^TH MAIN ROAD, GOKULA 1^ST STAGE, 2^ND PHASE, MATHIKERE, BENGALURU - 560054

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

(BY SRI. M R SHALAMALA., ADVOCATE)

¶15

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:12041 CRL.P No. 4075 of 2018

¶16

AND:

¶17

STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶18

BY YESHWANTHPURA POLICE STATION, YESHWANTHPURA SUB-DIVISION, BENGALURU CITY, REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560001

¶19

SMT C LALITHA W/O SELVAM, D/O CHELLAYAN, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, NO 10, 14^TH 'B' CROSS, MATHIKERE LAYOUT, BENGALURU - 560054.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. M.R.PATIL, HCGP FOR R1, SRI. N.JAIPRAKASH RAO, ADV. FOR R2.)

¶22

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE YESHWANTHAPURA POLICE STATION, BANGALORE IN CRIME NO.148/2018 FOR THE OFFENCE REGISTERED UNDER SECTIONS 427,447,506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3(1)(e)(f)(g) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.

¶23

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

¶24

ORDER

¶25

The petitioners are before this Court seeking for the

¶26

following reliefs:

¶27

"WHEREFORE, the petitioners most humbly pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to:

¶28

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:12041 CRL.P No. 4075 of 2018

¶29

a) quash the First Information Report registered by the Yeshwanthpura police station, Bengaluru in Crime No.148/2018 for the offences registered under Sections 427, 447, 506 r/w 34 Indian Penal Code and Sections 3(1)(e)(f)(g) of Schedule Caste and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Attrocities) Act, 2015

¶30

b) To grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

¶31

Respondent No.2 complainant furnished first information on 08.05.2018 in furtherance of which Crime No.148/2018 was registered by the Yeshwanthapura Police Station on 09.05.2018 at 3.20 p.m., for the offences punishable under Section 3(1)(e), 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 as amended and also under Sections 427, 447, 506 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

¶32

The allegation made in the complaint is that respondent No.2 being a resident in site No.710, situated at 1^st Phase, Gokula 1^st State, Mathikere, Bengaluru. The said property was undivided property of her family members. One Narasimha Reddy i.e. petitioner No.1 who is the accused No.1 got sale deed in his favour from his brother Thomas by creating fake and fraudulent documents as

¶33

4 - NC: 2024:KHC:12041 CRL.P No. 4075 of 2018

¶34

regards which the complainant has filed a suit in O.S.No.7534/2017. She further alleged that on 07.05.2018, the accused No.1 along with accused Nos.2 and 3 came with rowdy elements to the said house and abused her by using her caste and on that basis, an action was sought for to be initiated against the petitioners. Challenging the same, the petitioners are before this Court.

¶35

Smt. M R Shalmala, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are the purchasers of the above said property. It is further submitted that the petitioners are put into possession of the said property and respondent No.2 obstructed the petitioners possession of the aforesaid property. Respondent No.2 has already filed a suit in OS.No.7534/2017 and the above complaint is filed to give a criminal twist to the civil disputes between the parties. It is her further submission that the dispute is related to the property. The offence under Section 3(1)(e), 3(1)(f), 3(1)(g), of the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 has been added only to harass the petitioners. On

¶36

¶37

NC: 2024:KHC:12041 CRL.P No. 4075 of 2018

¶38

these grounds, he submits that the above petition may be allowed and the proceedings against the petitioner may be quashed.

¶39

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and having gone through the complaint which has been filed, it is firstly clear that the alleged incident in respect of the offence punishable under Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 2015 has occurred at the house which is the subject matter of the suit. In that view of the matter, it is appropriate to mention here the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

¶40

Hitesh Verma V. State of Uttarakhand and Anr. reported AIR 2020 SC 5580 , more particularly "para 18" thereof, which is reproduced hereunder for easy reference:

¶41

"18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Case unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Case or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out."

¶42

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:12041 CRL.P No. 4075 of 2018

¶43

Since the incident having not occurred in open space and not in a public view, no offence as such has been made out against the petitioner herein. The said original suit in OS.No.7534/2017 has been filed as regards the said property. It is clear that this dispute is civil in nature and the said property dispute is pending consideration before the appropriate Civil Court. Thus, in my considered view, the compliant filed is as regards the civil dispute and it is not maintainable. Hence, I pass the following:

¶44

::ORDER::

¶45

i) The criminal petition is allowed.

¶46

ii) The FIR in Crime No.148/2018 registered by Yeshwanthpur Police Station is hereby quashed.

¶47

Sd/JUDGE

¶48

SSD

¶49

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Narasimha Reddy v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narasimha Reddy v. 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

Official Liquidator of Vs Mr S S Dahiya

Sri. Sudhir Prabhakar Ghate Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S. Magnum Intergrafiks Private Limited

Official Liquidator of M/S Magnum Intergrafiks Vs Sri Sudhir Prabhakar Ghate

Sri S Balakrishna Jois Vs the State by the Police Sub Inspector

Sri Ashok Patil Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Sumedha Rohit Purohit Vs the State of Karnataka