Bette Gowda Vs State of Karnataka

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S. 482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE PROCEEDINGS IN SPECIAL CASE NO.162/2017, ON THE FILE OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SPECIAL JUDGE, MYSURU, WHEREIN THE 1^ST RESPONDENT HAVE SUBMITTED CHARGE SHEET AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504 R/W 506 OF IPC SECTION 3(1)(R)(S) OF SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULE TRIBES (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ORIDIANCE 2014, AND SECTION 3(2)(V-A) OF SC AND ST ACT.

¶19

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

¶20

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

The petitioner being accused No. 1 in crime No.211/2016 of Hunsur Rural Police Station, now pending in Spl.C.No.162/2017 on the file of the learned VI Additional District & Special Judge, Mysuru, is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him for the offences punishable under Sections 504,506 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC') and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,1989 (for short 'SC/ST Act').

¶23

Brief facts of the case are that; respondent No.2-informant filed the first information before Hunsur

¶24

3 -

¶25

NC: 2025:KHC:2465 CRL.P No. 320 of 2018

¶26

Police Station against the petitioner alleging commission of offences under Sections 16 and 18 of Bonded Labour System (Abolition) Act, 1976, Sections 3(1)(r) and (s), 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act and under Sections 420 and 504 of IPC. The First Information came to be filed on 25.05.2016 by respondent No.2 alleging that the deceased Mallik was working as bonded labour under the petitioner, who used to ill-treat the labourer. It is stated in the complaint that, the petitioner had assured the family members of deceased Mallik that the darkasth land would be transferred in their name and till that is done, to send Mallik to work in the house of the petitioner, where the deceased was being treated as bonded labour under the petitioner. When the informant being the brother went and requested the petitioner to take back Rs.80,000/(Rupees Eighty thousand only) paid by him, and to release the deceased Mallik from the bonded labour, the petitioner was not agreeable for the same.

¶27

4 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:2465 CRL.P No. 320 of 2018

¶29

It is stated that on 18.05.2016, at about 6.00

¶30

p.m., his brother Mallik i.e. the victim came weeping to

¶31

the house and complained that he was treated as a bonded labour inhumanely, and he is not being paid anything. In the meantime, the petitioner came and abused the deceased in filthy language, dragged him back and took him in the car. On 25^th May 2016 at about 10.00 am, the informant, his father and other persons from his village went to the house of the petitioner and enquired about his brother. Even then, the petitioner abused them in filthy language. On 25.05.2016 at about 8.00 am, a person by name Sundaramurthy came to the house of the informant and told that his brother Mallik has consumed pesticide. Immediately, he was shifted to the hospital and subsequently, he died. The investigation was undertaken and the charge sheet came to be filed for the offences as stated above. It is stated that the matter is pending in Spl.C.No.162/2017 before the Trial Court and the petitioner before this Court is seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him.

¶32

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:2465 CRL.P No. 320 of 2018

¶33

Heard Sri. Suyog Herele E, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. Rashmi Patel, learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1/State. Perused the material on record.

¶34

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

¶35

“Whether the Petitioner has made out any ground to allow the petition and to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him?"

¶36

My answer to the above point is in ‘Affirmative’

¶37

for the following:

¶38

R E A S O N S

¶39

The informant has filed the first information on 25-05-2016 against the petitioner alleging commission of offences against the petitioner and the charge sheet came

¶40

to be filed for the offences as stated above. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced copies of the

¶41

6 -

¶42

NC: 2025:KHC:2465 CRL.P No. 320 of 2018

¶43

statements of the informant and three other witnesses recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. by the learned Magistrate on 14.06.2016. None of these witnesses have stated anything about commission of the offences by the petitioner.

¶44

It is stated that further statements of witnesses

¶45

under section 161 of Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein the witnesses said to have stated that the deceased Mallik was working under the petitioner as a bonded labour and he was suffering from stomach-ache. Due to humiliation meted out by the petitioner, his brother consumed pesticide. Even though he was admitted to the hospital immediately, his life could not be saved. On the basis of such further statements of respondent No.2, mother and brothers of the deceased Mallik, the police filed the charge sheet. Admittedly, no additional statements under Section 164 of Cr.P.C. were recorded by the learned Magistrate. When respondent No.2 and three other witnesses who are close relatives of the deceased have given their statement

¶46

7 -

¶47

NC: 2025:KHC:2465 CRL.P No. 320 of 2018

¶48

under Section 164 of Cr.P.C and there is no reference to commission of any offence alleged against the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the contention taken by the prosecution.

¶49

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Vaishya vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another,¹ in support of his contention that Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of the SC/ST Act are not at all attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case since the incident has not taken place in the public place. The Hon'ble Apex Court with reference to the facts of the case stated supra, held that the legislative intent is clear that

¶50

every insult or intimidation for humiliation towards a person, would not amount to an offence under the special enactment, unless, of course, such an insult or intimidation is made to the victim because of the fact that he being a member of either Schedule Caste or Tribe.

¶51

1 2023 SCC Online SC 668

¶52

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:2465 CRL.P No. 320 of 2018

¶53

On perusal of the material on record, it is noticed that there is no allegation against the petitioner that he abused the deceased only because he belongs to such caste or tribe and the same is not reflected either in the First Information or in the charge sheet. Under such circumstances, the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner would help him in seeking to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against him. Therefore, I am of the opinion that initiation of the criminal proceedings is purely an abuse of process of law and hence the criminal proceedings against the petitioner is liable to be quashed.

¶54

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

¶55

ORDER

¶56

i. The criminal petition is allowed.

¶57

ii. The criminal case registered against the petitioner - accused No.1 in Crime No.211/2016 of Hunsur Rural Police

¶58

9 -

¶59

NC: 2025:KHC:2465 CRL.P No. 320 of 2018

¶60

Station, pending in Spl.C.No.162/2017 on the file of the learned VI Additional District and Special Judge, Mysuru, registered for the offences punishable under Sections 504,506 of IPC and under Sections 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act, is hereby quashed.

¶61

Sd/(M G UMA) JUDGE

¶62

SSD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Bette Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bette Gowda v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shashikumar @ Shashi Vs State through

Sri Brijesh Mathew Vs Sri Harishraj G B

Sri Lokesh Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Manjunath G Vs State by Basavanagudi Women Police Station Bengaluru

Mr. Thulasi Naik @ Esudash Vs the State of Karnataka

Moore Living India Building Solutions LLP Vs M/S Gowri Infra Engineers Pvt. Ltd.