Allowed

Raghu M S v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC23 Nov 2024CRL.P/7862/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 448, 427, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) SC/ST Act, holding that the allegations were fabricated to leverage pending litigation. The court found the invocation of special enactment was an afterthought lacking intention to humiliate.

What did the court decide?

Quashing of criminal proceedings in Crime No.17/2019 and Spl.C.C.No.125/2020.

Raghu M S Vs State of Karnataka — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:47891 CRL.P No. 7862 of 2020

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 7862 OF 2020

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

RAGHU M.S., S/O. SUBBARAJU, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS.

¶8

SMT. PADMAJA W/O. RAGHU M.S., AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS. BOTH R/AT NO. 61, AGS LAYOUT, NEW BEL ROAD, BENGALURU 560 054

¶9

…PETITIONERS

¶10

(BY SRI. RAJASHEKAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by NANDINI B G Location: high court of karnataka

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SANJAY NAGAR PS , REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE 560 001.

¶14

KIRAN S/O. VENKATACALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT NO. 17, 9^TH MAIN, NEAR RAMAIAH COLLEGE, MATTIKERE COLONY, BENGALURU 560 094

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SMT. RASHMI JADHAV, ADDL.SPP FOR R1; R2 - SERVED- UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

¶18

NC: 2024:KHC:47891 CRL.P No. 7862 of 2020

¶19

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.C.NO.125/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL JUDGE, BENGALURU FOR THE OFFENCE P/U/S 448,427,504,506 R/W 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(x) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT, PURSUANT TO THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT IN CR.NO.125/2019 OF SANJAY NAGAR POLICE STATION.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 are seeking to quash the criminal proceedings registered in Crime No.17/2019 of Sanjay Nagar Police Station, pending in Spl.C.C.No.125/2020, on the file of the learned LXX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under Sections 448, 427, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code ( for short 'IPC') and under Section 3(1) (r)(s) of the Scheduled Caste / Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST Act').

¶24

Brief facts of the case are that, respondent No.2 as informant filed the first information against the petitioners

¶25

¶26

NC: 2024:KHC:47891 CRL.P No. 7862 of 2020

¶27

alleging commission of offences as stated above on 30.01.2019 at about 5.00 pm. It is contended that he was working in Focus TV since two years as a cab manager. On 29.01.2019 at about 7.00 pm, accused Nos.1 and 2 have illegally trespassed into the chamber of Hemath.M.K in the office of Focus TV and picked up quarrel with him and damaged the photo of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar. When the informant questioned accused Nos.1 and 2, they abused him in filthy language referring to his caste and criminally intimidated to cause his death. Therefore, he requested the Police to register the case and to initiate legal action. Accordingly, FIR came to be registered in Crime No.17/2019 and the investigation was undertaken. It is stated that the investigation is completed and the charge sheet came to be filed for the aforesaid offences. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and registered Spl.C.C.No.125/2020.

¶28

Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners being accused Nos.1 and 2 are before this Court seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2024:KHC:47891 CRL.P No. 7862 of 2020

¶31

Heard Sri Rajashekar S, learned counsel for the petitioners, Smt. Rashmi Jadhav, learned Additional SPP for respondent No.1. Perused the materials on record.

¶32

Learned counsel for petitioners contended that petitioner No.1 - accused No.1 is the owner of the building, where Focus TV is being run. Document No.5 is the leave and license agreement dated 27.01.2017 entered into between petitioner No.1 and the owner of Focus TV i.e., Hemanth.M.K. The said Hemanth.M.K filed the suit in O.S.No.3692/2018 seeking permanent injunction, restraining petitioner No.1 from dispossessing him. The said suit came to filed on 28.05.2018. Petitioner No.1 has filed a memo on 13.12.2018, raising objection regarding admissibility of the leave and license agreement, as the same is unregistered and called upon to pay the requisite stamp duty and penalty. On 25.01.2019, the plaintiff in the said suit i.e., Hemath.M.K filed a memo agreeing to pay the stamp duty and penalty. It is only thereafter, the present FIR came to be registered against petitioners.

¶33

Learned counsel submitted that petitioner No.1 has filed the suit in O.S.No.4174/2019 seeking eviction of

¶34

¶35

NC: 2024:KHC:47891 CRL.P No. 7862 of 2020

¶36

Hemath.M.K. The suit came to be filed on 13.06.2019. Subsequently, the suit came to be decreed, possession was handed over in favour of petitioner No.1. The execution case for recovery of arrears of rent is still pending.

¶37

Learned counsel submits that petitioner No.1 filed C.C.No.8280/2019, C.C.No.8281/2019 and C.C.No.8283/2019 and C.C.No.4174/2019 against the said Hemanth.M.K, alleging commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'NI Act'). Various cheques issued by him as the tenant towards arrears of rent were came to be dishonoured and therefore, the private complaints came to be filed. The Trial Court took cognizance of the offence and registered the criminal cases. In all the four cases, the said Hemanth.M.K was subsequently convicted for the said offence and the same is challenged by preferring the criminal appeal. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that, in view of these civil and criminal litigations pending between petitioner No.1 and Hemanth.M.K, the informant was made as a pawn to file a false complaint without any basis.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2024:KHC:47891 CRL.P No. 7862 of 2020

¶40

Learned counsel contented that one Gopal Naik,

¶41

who was the Police Inspector of Sanjay Nagar police Station is cited as CW.12 in the charge sheet. He gave his statement that on 29.01.2019 at 10:30.p.m., when he was in the Police Station, Focus TV owner Hemanth.M.K along with five to six office persons came to the police station and alleged that at about 8:00.p.m., the building owner Raghu and his wife i.e., accused Nos.1 and 2 came to his chamber and abused him in filthy language. The witness stated that on that day, neither Hemanth.M.K nor anybody else have alleged regarding commission of any offence committed to invoke the provisions of SC/ST Act i.e., regarding damaging photographs of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar or Basavanna, abusing the informant or Hemanth.M.K by referring to their caste, etc. The witness also states that only on 30.01.2019, Hemanth.M.K came to the Police Station making allegations to invoke the provisions under the SC/ST Act.

¶42

Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court to the statement of CW.5-Jagadish, who is treated as eye-witness to the incident. Even this witness has specifically stated that the informant Kiran was not in the spot when the incident took

¶43

¶44

NC: 2024:KHC:47891 CRL.P No. 7862 of 2020

¶45

place as he was on weekly off and he came to the spot after the incident. Moreover, this witness also stated that there were no photos of either Dr. B.R.Ambedkar or Basavanna on the table of Hemanth.M.K and hence, the same were not damaged. However, after registration of complaint and when the spot mahajar was drawn, those photos were found in the cabin in a damaged condition. He pleaded his ignorance as to who and when those photos were kept.

¶46

Learned counsel further submitted that Hemanth.M.K, the owner of the Focus TV is cited as CW.1, even in his statement recorded on 12.09.2017, the informant was on weekly off and he was not in his chamber at the time of the alleged incident. It is only later, he came to the office. As per his statement, the witness had never stated about petitioners damaging the photographs of Dr. B.R.Ambedkar and Basavanna. He has no reasonable explanation for not-stating these facts immediately after the incident or at least in his first statement.

¶47

Learned counsel submits that CW.5-Rudrappa is cited as another eye witness and even this witness states that

¶48

8 - NC: 2024:KHC:47891 CRL.P No. 7862 of 2020

¶49

the informant was on weekly off and was not at the spot when the incident took place. With all these materials, it is clear that to wreck vengeance against petitioner No.1, a false statement came to be filed by him through his associate - Kiran, who is respondent No.2 herein.

¶50

Learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Sri. Shailesh Kumar.V v/s State of Karnataka and Another¹ to contend that unless there is an intention to humiliate, the case under Section 3(1)(r) & (s), cannot be made out.

¶51

Learned counsel also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Indian Oil Corporation v/s NEPC India Ltd AND Others² in support of his contention that it is the growing tendency in business circle to convert the civil dispute into criminal case only to arm twist the accused to agree for the terms and it was deprecated by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Placing reliance on these decisions learned counsel for the petitioners contended that it is yet another classic case of misuse of the provisions of Special enactment and therefore, he

¶52

1 Crl.P.No.2797/2022 DTD 17.01.2023

¶53

2 (2006)6 SCC 736

¶54

¶55

NC: 2024:KHC:47891 CRL.P No. 7862 of 2020

¶56

prays for allowing the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings in the interest of justice.

¶57

Per contra , learned Additional SPP opposing the petition submitted that on the next day of incident, the first information came to be filed. Even though nobody have sustained any injury in the incident, the photos which were kept on the table of Hemanth.M.K were damaged due to the acts of accused Nos. 1 and 2. They have defamed the leaders and abused the informant in filthy language by referring to his castes and prima facie case is made out from the materials that are placed by the Investigating Officer while filing the charge sheet. CW-2, 5 and 6 are cited as eye-witnesses to the incident and at this stage, their version cannot be disbelieved. Since there are prima facie materials, she prays for dismissal of the petition.

¶58

In view of the rival contentions urged by the learned counsel for both the parties, the point that would arise for my consideration is:

¶59

“Whether the Petitioners have made out any grounds to allow the petition and

¶60

10 -

¶61

NC: 2024:KHC:47891 CRL.P No. 7862 of 2020

¶62

to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them?"

¶63

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’ for the following:

¶64

R E A S O N S

¶65

The informant Kiran filed the first information against accused Nos. 1 and 2, who are the petitioners herein, alleging commission of the offence as stated above. It is pertinent to note that according to the informant, the incident had taken place on 29.01.2019 at 7.00 pm. The FIR came to be registered on 30.01.2019 at 5.00 pm. There are no reasons assigned for the delay in lodging the complaint.

¶66

It is pertinent to note that the informant along with Hemanth.M.K, who is cited as CW-2 in the charge sheet had infact visited Sanjay Nagar police station immediately after the so called incident on 29.01.2019, at about 10.30 pm and asked the police to register the FIR. The Police Inspector who is cited as CW-12 has given his statement before the Investigating Officer that, Hemanth.M.K - CW-2 along with 5 or 6 other persons had came and informed about the incident which had taken place at 8.00 pm on the same day. This witness furthers

¶67

11 -

¶68

NC: 2024:KHC:47891 CRL.P No. 7862 of 2020

¶69

states that Hemanth.M.K had complained that accused Nos.1 and 2 have came to his chamber, picked up quarrel with him, abused him in filthy language. Witness specifically states that on the said date Hemanth.M.K has not stated anything about abusing the informant in filthy language by referring to his caste or damaging the photos of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar and Basavanna. Witness further states that Hemanth.M.K and Kiran have insisted for registration of two different FIRs. But since he advised them to file a complaint by any one of them, they went away. It was only on the next day i.e., on 30.01.2019, respondent No.2 came and filed the complaint, alleging commission of the offence under Special Enactment Act.

¶70

It is also pertinent to note that CW-2 is the owner of Focus TV. His statement was also recorded by the police. In his statement recorded by the Investigating Officer, witness specifically stated that the informant was on weekly off and he was not in the office at the time of incident. Later he was called over the phone. This witness specifically states that he had not informed the police when he first visited the police station regarding commission of the offence by the petitioners under the provisions of Special Enactment. He has no reason for not

¶71

12 -

¶72

NC: 2024:KHC:47891 CRL.P No. 7862 of 2020

¶73

mentioning about the said incident i.e., causing damages to the photos of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar and Basavanna or abusing in filthy language by referring to his caste. However, when subsequently the further statement of CW-2 was recorded, he refers to the presence of the informant in his chamber, damaging the photographs of Dr.B.R.Ambedkar and Basavvana and abusing in filthy language by referring to his caste.

¶74

CW-5 is yet another eye-witness cited by the Investigating Officer who states specifically that the informant was on weekly off and he was not at the spot when the incident had occurred. He was very much present in the chamber of Hemanth.M.K – CW-2. Accused Nos.1 and 2 have come, picked up quarrel with Hemanth.M.K, in turn Hemanth.M.K also abused them in filthy language. The quarrel was with reference to arrears of rent which was not paid by Hemanth.M.K. He states that, in the incident even there was reference to the cheques which were issued by Hemanth.M.K towards arrears of rent got bounced. This witness specifically states that he had never seen photographs of either Dr.B.R.Ambedkar or Basavanna which were kept on the table of Hemanth.M.K or the same were being damaged by the petitioners. Witness refers

¶75

13 -

¶76

NC: 2024:KHC:47891 CRL.P No. 7862 of 2020

¶77

to the incident where Hemanth.M.K had assaulted accused No.1 and it is only thereafter accused No.2 started abusing him.

¶78

CW-7 Rudraprasad is the one more witness cited by the prosecution. Even according to this witness, initially, the informant was not at the office, but he was called later and speaks about the incident. These facts and circumstances, found in the charge sheet are to be taken into consideration to find out as to whether there are prima facie materials to constitute the offence or not.

¶79

Interestingly, Hemanth.M.K had filed the suit O.S.No.3692/2018 against petitioner No.1 on 28.05.2018 seeking permanent injunction restraining petitioner No.1 from dispossessing him from the premises in which he was the tenant. Document No.5 produced by the petitioner is the leave and license agreement dated 27.01.2017 entered into between petitioner No.1 as the owner of the building and Hemanth.M.K –CW-2 being the owner of Focus TV. Therefore, prima facie it is clear that Hemanth.M.K was the tenant under petitioner No.1 and he sought for permanent injunction against petitioner No.1

¶80

14 -

¶81

NC: 2024:KHC:47891 CRL.P No. 7862 of 2020

¶82

Learned counsel for the petitioners produced the memo dated 13.12.2018 filed in the said suit by petitioner No.1 raising objection regarding admissibility of lease and license agreement as the same is unregistered, insisted for impounding the document. He has also produced another memo dated 25.01.2019, where Hemanth.M.K being the plaintiff in the said suit agreed to pay stamp duty and penalty. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that when the document is impounded, Hemanth.M.K was asked to pay more than Rs.6 Lakhs as duty penalty. It is thereafter, the present complaint came to be filed on 30.01.2019. It is stated that petitioner No.1 had also filed the suit for eviction against Hemanth.M.K in O.S.No.4174/2019 and got a decree for eviction and for arrears of rent. It is stated that the possession is already handed over to petitioner No.1 under the decree. The execution for arrears of rent is still pending. It is also contended by the petitioners that four different criminal cases are registered by petitioner No.1 against Hemanth.M.K invoking Section 138 of NI Act as the cheques that were issued towards arrears of rent were dishonoured. It is stated in all the four cases Hemanth.M.K was convicted.

¶83

15 -

¶84

NC: 2024:KHC:47891 CRL.P No. 7862 of 2020

¶85

If these facts and circumstances referring to the charge sheet filed by the Investigating Officer are to be taken into consideration, in light of civil and criminal litigations pending between petitioner No.1 and Hemanth.M.K, the first information filed by respondent No.2 referring to CW-2 - Hemanth.M.K assumes importance. According to respondent No.2 the incident had taken place in the chamber of CW-2. Immediately after the incident, he along with CW-2 and others went to the police station, but did not made any allegations to invoke the provisions under the Special Enactment. But when the FIR came to be registered on the subsequent date, serious allegations were made against accused Nos. 1 and 2. The statements of eye-witnesses disclose that respondent No.2 was on weekly off on that day and his presence was secured subsequently for the reasons best known to CW-2. But the statements of witnesses, in particular, statements of CWs-2, 5 and 12 disclose that invocation of the special provisions under Special Enactment by the informant was an afterthought. The reason for invoking the provisions subsequently is obvious as admittedly, civil and criminal litigations are pending between the parties.

¶86

16 -

¶87

NC: 2024:KHC:47891 CRL.P No. 7862 of 2020

¶88

Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision in Sri. Shailesh Kumar.V (supra) where the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court referring to the requirement of Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of SC & ST Act categorically held that there must be an intention to humiliate the victim by the accused to invoke the said special provision. When this requirement of the provision i.e., intention to insult is absent, mere referring to the caste of the person will not give rise to invoking the provisions.

¶89

Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Indian Oil Corporation (supra), wherein, the Hon’ble Apex Court expressed its concern over the growing tendency to convert purely civil disputes into criminal cases obviously on account of prevalent impression that civil remedies are time consuming and do not adequately protect the interest of the lenders/creditors. The Court has expressed its anguish that is being adopted in several family disputes. The Court referring to its earlier decision in G Sagar Suri v/s State of UP³ deprecated the tendency to entangle the person with a criminal

¶90

3 2000 (1) SCR 417

¶91

17 -

¶92

NC: 2024:KHC:47891 CRL.P No. 7862 of 2020

¶93

prosecution only with an intention to settle the score and to pressurize the other side to agree for the terms. The Court mandated to prevent such practices of misusing provisions of criminal enactment and to curb unnecessary prosecution to harass the innocent persons.

¶94

If the facts and circumstances disclosed above are taken into consideration, prima facie , it is a classic case of misuse of provisions of Special Enactment by respondent No.2 for the reasons best know to him. Under such circumstances, the criminal proceedings initiated against them is liable to be quashed to prevent abuse of process of law.

¶95

Accordingly, I answer the above point in the Affirmative and proceed to pass the following:

¶96

ORDER

¶97

(i) The petition is allowed.

¶98

(ii) Entire proceedings in Crime No.17/2019 of Sanjay Nagar Police Station, pending in Spl.C.C.No.125/2020, on the file of the learned LXX Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru for the offences punishable under

¶99

NC: 2024:KHC:47891 CRL.P No. 7862 of 2020

¶100

18 -

¶101

Section 448, 427, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC Act and Section 3(1) (r) (s) of the SC/ST Act is hereby quashed.

¶102

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶103

PHM,SPV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 55

Raghu M S v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raghu M S 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

Shri a Mohan Das Vs Shri Himanshu Gupta

Sri S Nithya @ Nithyananda Vs Sri N Shakeel Khan

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Vishnu Poojary

Sri S v Srinivas Murthy HUF Vs M/S Savi Enterprises

Ananth Vs the State of Karnataka

Ms Samara Mahindra Vs M/S Mahaveer Invetsments