Srinivasa Shettigar Vs the State of Karnataka

RATHAN KUMAR S/O. NARASIMHA ACHARYA, AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, R/AT NEAR VISHNU MURTHY TEMPLE, DODDANAGUDDE, SHIVALLI VILLAGE, KUNJIBETTU POST 576102, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶17

…PETITIONERS

¶18

(BY SRI. SUDESH KUMAR ACHARYA, ADVOCATE)

¶19

2 -

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:31226 CRL.P No. 6055 of 2021

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

AND:

¶23

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

¶24

BY UDUPI TOWN POLICE STATION, UDUPI 576101, REP BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT BUILDING, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU-560001

¶25

2. PURINA ANAND

¶26

W/O. PETER ANAND, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, R/AT NO. 608, INTECH CITY APARTMENT, NEAR VIJAYA BANK, KORANGRAPADY-576118, UDYAVARA VILLAGE, UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI.VINAY MAHADEVAIAH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI.MOHAN RAJ DORAISWAMY.A, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶29

THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN C.C.NO.1153/2021 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL CIVIL JUDGE AND J.M.F.C., UDUPI WITH REGARD TO ALLEGED OFFENCE P/U/S 341,504,298,506 R/W 34 OF IPC BY UDUPI TOWN P.S., IN CR.NO.15/2019.

¶30

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI

¶31

3 -

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:31226 CRL.P No. 6055 of 2021

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

ORAL ORDER

¶35

Petitioners, who are arraigned as accused Nos.1 to

¶36

3 have filed this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them in C.C.No.1153/2021 on the file of I Additional JMFC Udupi,

¶37

for the offence punishable under Sections 341, 504, 298, 506 r/w Section 34 of IPC (arising of out Cr.No.15/2019 of Udupi town PS).

¶38

In support of the petition, petitioners have

¶39

contended that the issue of process in CC No.1553/2021 is nothing but abuse of process of law and is a counter blast against the complaint filed by accused No.1. Cr.No.13/2019 of Udupi town PS. The allegations made in the complaint does not make out a prime facie case. The trial Court has not followed the procedure contemplated for taking cognizance. It has acted mechanically. The complaint averments clearly indicates that it is only warning given to respondent No.2 not to involve with any

¶40

4 -

¶41

NC: 2025:KHC:31226 CRL.P No. 6055 of 2021

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

illegal acts of converting the community of the people into different religion. Though the alleged incident took place on 15.02.2019, complaint it filed on 20.02.2019. There is no explanation for the delay.

¶44

2.1 Similar complaint filed by respondent No.2 in Cr.No.13/2019 came to be quashed in WP Nos.1093710940/2019. Such being the case, the Magistrate ought not to have taken cognizance. The allegation made are

¶45

very vague. There was no intention on the part of the petitioners to hurt the religions sentiments of respondent No.2 and others. The complaint is filed with ulterior

¶46

motive to take vengeance against the petitioners. Viewed from any angle criminal proceedings are not sustainable. The continuation of criminal proceedings against him would amount to abuse of the process of the Court and hence, the petition.

¶47

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:31226 CRL.P No. 6055 of 2021

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

On the other hand learned HCGP and learned

¶50

counsel representing the respondent No.2/complainant would submit that there is prime facie material to proceed against the petitioners and as such petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. Respondent No.2 is permanent resident of Udupi. She is one of Jehovah's witnesses, a minority Christian religion, whose practice have recognized as being constitutional protection by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in Bijoe Emmanuel and Ors Vs. State of Kerala and Ors ( Bijoe Emmanuel )¹ .

¶51

3.1 Jehovah's witnesses are peace loving people. They are Christians. As part of their worship they follow direction of Holy bible by sharing good news from Holy Bible. It is an essential practice of their religion. Sharing of good news from Holy Bible is not to be confused with conversion. Jehovah's witnesses are opposed to forced or induced conversion.

¶52

1 AIR 1987 SC 748

¶53

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:31226 CRL.P No. 6055 of 2021

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

3.2. On 15.02.2019, around 10.30 a.m., respondent

¶56

No.2 and her companion were engaged in sharing good news at Doddanagudde, Shivalli village, Udupi, Mangaluru District. They visited two Muslim families and spoke to

¶57

them about the good news. They listened patiently. Then they proceeded to the house of petitioner No.1. When they were still at the gate and wished him, immediately, accused No.1 said that he is a Hindu and being Christians why do you come to my house. Hearing this, respondent No.2 and her companion left the place. While there were

¶58

still walking on the main road, at the instigation of petitioner No.1, his friends i.e, petitioner Nos.2 and 3 came on the motorbike and intercepted respondent No.2 and her companion. Petitioner Nos.2 and 3 illegally restrained them from proceeding further. They verbally abused them and falsely accused them of forced conversion.

¶59

3.3 They started gathering people by making phone calls. A few men gathered and started to shout and

¶60

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:31226 CRL.P No. 6055 of 2021

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

verbally abuse respondent No.2 and her companion. All

¶63

the efforts made by respondent No.2 to speak to them politely went in vain. The members of the mob became more arrogant and kept shouting at the respondent No.2

¶64

and her companion. One of them said that if they were men, they would have been stripped naked and killed. Respondent No.2 and her companion felt very insecure.

¶65

3.4 Two of the friends of respondent No.2 were also sharing the good news close to the place of incident. One of the accomplice of petitioner No.1 said that there are other two women doing the same work. Out of the mob, two of the men went on the motorcycle and intercepted the other two women. In the meanwhile, petitioner No.1 reached the place where the friends of respondent No.2 were restrained. Petitioner No.1 also telephone petitioner No.2, who is a local political leader of BJP who quickly arrived at the scene. They started shouting at respondent No.2. Petitioner No.3 made respondent No.2 and her

¶66

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:31226 CRL.P No. 6055 of 2021

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

companion to walk to the place where her other two friends were illegally resisted by petitioner Nos.1 and 2.

¶69

3.5 Petitioners maliciously insulted the Christian

¶70

religion and accused respondent No.2 and her friends as a robbers, which deeply hurt their religious sentiments. Petitioners demanded the respondent No.2 and other three women to open their handbags in order to check their belongings. Many of the passers by joined petitioners and their allies and thereby forming a mob. In threatening voice, petitioner No.2 set that 80% of the population of India are Hindus and you are only 20% and how dare you come to our houses and talk about Christianity. We were warned not to go to Hindu houses. This is the last chance. They insulted respondent No.2 and her friends saying that can't you work and earn and you people are doing this for money.

¶71

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:31226 CRL.P No. 6055 of 2021

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

3.6 When they try to explain that they are not doing

¶74

it for money, petitioners accused them of receiving money

¶75

from the church. Petitioner No.2 called the police who arrived at the spot at 11.50 a.m. Around 12.05 p.m, the police took respondent No.2 and her friends in a police

¶76

jeep to the Udupi town PS. The concerned police confiscated their mobile phones. Petitioners and some members of the mob followed the police vehicle and reached the police station. At the police station, petitioner No.1 gave a patently false and fabricated complaint against respondent No.2 and her friends and it was registered in Cr.No.13/2019 for the offences punishable under Sections 447, 298 r/w 304 IPC. Respondent No.2 and her friends were made to sit in the police station till 6.15 p.m. All the while no consideration was shown to them that they are women. Thereafter, they were taken to

¶77

the Magistrate home office, who granted them in interim bail. Later they were granted regular bail on the next day.

¶78

10 - NC: 2025:KHC:31226 CRL.P No. 6055 of 2021

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

Incidentally, part of the incident was uploaded

¶81

by the perpetrators in the form of a video on Whatsapp without the permission of respondent No.2 and her friends. The negative publicity has caused irreparable damage to the good reputation of respondent No.2 and her friends who hailed from a well reputed and respected families. The local newspaper also published the said incident portraying them in a bad light, alleging that they were indulged in forced conversion. After conducting detailed investigation, the concerned police have filed charge sheet against petitioners Nos.1 to 3. There is prima facie material to proceed against them and pray to dismiss the petition.

¶82

Heard arguments and perused the record.

¶83

Respondent No.2 and her companions belong

¶84

Johovas’ Witnesses which is a minority Christian religion.

¶85

One of the essential practice of the said religion is that the members are required to spread the good news from the

¶86

11 - NC: 2025:KHC:31226 CRL.P No. 6055 of 2021

¶87

HC-KAR

¶88

Holy Bible. Accordingly, on 15.02.2019, when they were engaged in visiting the houses and spreading the good news to those who are agreeing to listen to them, petitioner No.1 not only prevented respondent No.2 and her companion from entering his premises, but also when she went out of the gate of his house, he not only followed them, but also called petitioner Nos.2 and 3 and through them collected a mob who wrongfully restrained, respondent No.2 and her companion and also made the other two women who were in the adjoining street to join them and together with the mob, they insulted the four women. They gave threat, insulted the Christian religion

¶89

and also went to the extent of saying that if they were men, they could have been stripped naked and burnt alive.

¶90

The Charge sheet reveal that petitioners called the police and took respondent No.2 and her companions to the police station, a case was registered against them in Cr.No.13/2015. However, said criminal proceedings came

¶91

12 - NC: 2025:KHC:31226 CRL.P No. 6055 of 2021

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

to be quashed by this Court in WP.Nos.10937-10940/2019.

¶94

The photographs produced which are captured by the petitioners themselves and uploaded into the media through Whatsapp, itself reveal that the respondent No.2 and other three were wrongly restrained by the petitioners and the mob and they given threat. The complaint averments as well as the statements given by the respondent No.2 and her companions clearly indicate that they were surrounded by petitioners and other mob and threat was given to them of dire consequences.

¶95

In support of the petition, the petitioners have contended that there is delay in filing the complaint. It is pertinent to note that the incident took place on 15.02.2019. On that day, the four women were taken to the police station by the concerned police, a case was registered against them in Cr.No.13/2019 and till evening they were made to sit in the police station and thereafter they were produced before Home office of the Magistrate.

¶96

13 -

¶97

NC: 2025:KHC:31226 CRL.P No. 6055 of 2021

¶98

HC-KAR

¶99

They were given interim bail and on the next day they were granted regular bail. Of course later they took steps to get the criminal proceedings initiated against them quashed. In the above circumstances, it appears there is delay in filing the present complaint against the petitioners. Of course it is for respondent No.2 to explain the same at the trial.

¶100

Having regard to the fact that there is a strong prima facie case to proceed against the petitioners, as evident from the material placed on record and in the charge sheet, delay cannot be a ground for quashing the criminal proceedings. It is a matter for evidence. Prosecution must be given an opportunity to prove the allegations in a full fledged trial. Certainly, it is not a case for quashing the criminal proceeding against the petitioners. In the above circumstances, the decisions relied upon by the petitioners are not applicable to the case on hand.

¶101