Allowed

Bank Officers Co-Operative Housing v. Karanataka State Commission for

Karnataka HC28 Nov 2024WP/63522/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka quashed proceedings initiated by the SC/ST Commission against petitioners following a complaint filed after their civil suit and criminal case ended in adverse orders against the complainant. The Court held the allegations became res judicata.

What did the court decide?

Proceedings initiated by respondent No.1 in Case No.598 of 2016 were quashed.

Bank Officers Co-Operative Housing Vs Karanataka State… — Caste Atrocities | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

1 - NC: 2024:KHC:48931 WP No. 63522 of 2016

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA WRIT PETITION NO. 63522 OF 2016 (SCST)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

BANK OFFICERS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED, A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY REGISTERD UNDER THE KARNATAKA CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1959 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFIE AT FLAT NO.006 "ACHARYA SANKEERNA" AICOBOONAGAR, 9TH MAIN, 2ND CROSS, BTM LAYOUT II STAGE, BENGALURU 560 076 REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY.

¶8

P. KISHORE KUMAR S/O P.K. GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, WORKING AS SECRETARY, BANK OFICERS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED,

¶9

Digitally signed by KIRAN KUMAR R

¶10

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

FLAT NO.006, ACHARYA SANKEERNA, AICOBOONAGAR, 9TH MAIN, 2ND CROS, BTM LAY-OOUT II STAGE, BENGALURU-560 076.

¶12

S. SRIDHAR

¶13

S/O LATE E.R. SHAMACHAR, AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, MEMBER OF COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT OF BANK OFFICERS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LIMITED, RESIDING AT NO.44, 8TH CROSS, 7TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. JAYANTH DEV KUMAR., FOR SMT. ASHWINI RAJAGOPAL., ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 - NC: 2024:KHC:48931 WP No. 63522 of 2016

¶17

AND:

¶18

KARANATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES, NO.14/3, 2ND FLOOR, CFC BUILDING, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 075.

¶19

H. GOVINDARAJ S/O LATE HANUMANTHAIAH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.251, 1ST MAIN, 1ST CROSS, JEEVAN BHIMA NAGAR, BANGALORE-560 075.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. A.C.MANJUNATH., ADVOCATE FOR R-1; VIDE ORDER DATED:04.12.2023, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R-2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN CAS ENO.598/2016 BEFORE THE R-1 AND QUASH PROCEEDIGNS INITIATED BY THE R-1 / KARNATAKA STATE COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES AND SCHEDULED TRIBES AGAINST THE PETITIONERS IN CASE NO.598/2016 PURSUANT TO THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE R- 2 BEFORE IT ON 26.12.2013 VIDE ANNEXURE-S AND GRANT ALL CONSEQUENTIAL BEENFITS, ETC.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N S SANJAY GOWDA

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:48931 WP No. 63522 of 2016

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Petitioner No.1 is a Co-operative Society and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are its office bearers. They are aggrieved by the initiation of a proceeding by respondent No.2 before the Karnataka State Commission for Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes, Bengaluru (for short, ‘ the Commission ’).

¶28

Annexure “N” is the complaint that had been lodged by respondent No.2 contending that he should be afforded protection and action should be taken against the petitioners for commission of offences under the Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘ the Act ’) and they should also be restrained from interfering with his possession.

¶29

The material on record indicates that respondent No.2 had simultaneously filed a criminal complaint alleging commission of offences under the Act and

¶30

¶31

NC: 2024:KHC:48931 WP No. 63522 of 2016

¶32

the police after investigation ultimately filed a ‘B’ report and this has not been challenged.

¶33

It is also borne out from the record that respondent No.2 had instituted civil proceedings which ended in a decree in his favor which was challenged before this Court in RFA No.739 of 2012 (INJ) connected with RFA No.1060 of 2011 and this Court vide order dated 04.12.2013 allowed the appeal not only by the petitioner—Society but also by the Bangalore Development Authority and dismissed the suit filed respondent No.2.

¶34

Respondent No.2 has thereafter preferred a Special Leave Petition (‘SLP’) before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP Nos.3434-3435 of 2014 and the Apex Court by its order dated 17.02.2014 has also dismissed the SLP.

¶35

Since respondent No.2’s attempt to prosecute the petitioners both on the civil side and the criminal

¶36

5 - NC: 2024:KHC:48931 WP No. 63522 of 2016

¶37

side have ended in adverse orders being passed against him, he cannot thereafter proceed to lodge a complaint to the Commission and request the Commission to invoke its powers under Section 8 of the Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002.

¶38

It has to be stated here that though the Commission does have the power to entertain specific complaints to safeguard the rights of persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, since, in the instant case, the respondent No.2 has already approached the Civil Court as well as the police authorities and has secured only adverse orders, the provisions of the Karnataka State Commission for the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 2002 cannot be utilized to get over the said orders.

¶39

6 - NC: 2024:KHC:48931 WP No. 63522 of 2016

¶40

Consequently, it is held that the proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1 are illegal and without jurisdiction.

¶41

In the result, the impugned proceedings initiated by respondent No.2 before respondent No.1 in Case No.598 of 2016 pursuant to the complaint filed by respondent No.2 are hereby quashed .

¶42

The writ petition is accordingly allowed .

¶43

Sd/(N S SANJAY GOWDA) JUDGE

¶44

RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 57

Bank Officers Co-Operative Housing v. Karanataka State Commission for

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bank Officers Co-Operative Housing v. Karanataka State Commission for

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

Sri. Chandrashekar Vs Cholamanadalam Ms General Company Ltd.

M/S. Royal Sundaram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Sri. Lakshmana Gowda

Rathnakar Vs Raghavendra Prasad

Sri Venkatesh Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Pushpa Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Chotu Vs Raja K