Smt Lakshmamma Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-QUASH THE ENDORSEMENT BEARING NO. JUMNI/SAKAEE/DHOU.PRA/CR58/2008-09 DATED 15.03.2025 ISSUED BY THE R2 PLACED AS ANNEXURE-F AND ETC.

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:50789 WP No. 33476 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

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

¶22

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

Learned AGA accepts notice for the respondents.

¶25

Petitioner is before the court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶26

"a. Quash the endorsement bearing No.JumNi/SaKaee/Dhou.Pra/Cr-58/2008-09 dated 15.03.2025 issued by the 2^nd Respondent placed as Annexure-F.

¶27

b. Direct the Respondents to grant compensation under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules 1955 in favour of the Petitioner, as the mother and legal heir of the deceased victim Shri Govindaraju S/o Shri Nanjaiah.

¶28

c. Pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice and equity."

¶29

The petitioner and her son had filed an FIR which came to be registered in Crime No.582/2008 by the Dandinashivara Police Station, Tumkur District on 15.08.2008 alleging that the accused therein had abused the petitioner and her son as regard their caste, threatened their lives and physically assaulted several

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:50789 WP No. 33476 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

members of the community. Investigation having been done, charge sheet had been laid and cognizance had been taken in Special.C.No.288/2008, wherein the accused had been acquitted on 23.06.2011. Subsequently on an appeal having been filed by the petitioner, the acquittal was overturned by this Court vide judgment dated 31.10.2023 in Criminal Appeal No.876/2011 convicting the accused therein for the offences under Section 3 (1) (x) and 3(1)(xi) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'POA Act') r/w Section 149 of the IPC.

¶33

The petitioner, having earlier made an application for grant of compensation claiming that the petitioner would be entitled for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation in terms of the Government Order No.SWD 37 SPA 2016, Bengaluru dated 20.06.2016, only a portion of the said compensation having been paid, is before this Court seeking for a direction to the respondents to make payment of the balance amount.

¶34

4 -

¶35

NC: 2025:KHC:50789 WP No. 33476 of 2025

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

In terms of the aforesaid Government Order dated 20.06.2016, it is clear that for an offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the POA Act, which is in pari materia with Section 3(1)(xi) of the POA Act with Section 3(1)(x) of the POA Act prior to the amendment in the year 2016, compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- is required to be paid, which shall be so paid as under:

¶38

i) the first instalment of 25% at the time of filing of the first information report;

¶39

ii) the second instalment of 50%, when the charge sheet is sent to the court; and

¶40

iii) the third instalment of 25%, when the accused are convicted by the lower court.

¶41

Though the word convicted by the lower Court has been used, I am of the considered opinion that if the lower Court were to acquit the accused and the High Court were to convict the accused, it would be the date of conviction by the High Court which would have to be taken into consideration for the said purpose and the balance 25% was required to be paid after such conviction. Merely because there was an acquittal by the lower Court/trial Court would not mean that the respondents-State would

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:50789 WP No. 33476 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

not be liable to make payment of the balance payment of the compensation. What is required is for the accused to be convicted. If the conviction were to be made by a higher Court like the High Court, it would then have been required for the State to immediately make payment of the balance amount of compensation. The same not

¶45

having been done, I pass the following:

¶46

ORDER

¶47

i) Writ petition is allowed .

¶48

ii) The endorsement dated 15.03.2025 issued by respondent No.2 at Annexure-F is quashed.

¶49

iii) The respondents are directed to make payment of balance compensation of 25% within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶50

Sd/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

¶51

VM

¶52

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9

Smt Lakshmamma v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt Lakshmamma v. the 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Mahalakshmi (Samskruthika Kala Halli Sambrama) Devasthanda Seva Samithi Trust (R) Vs the State of Karnataka

M/S. Maha Mysore Boat Building Enterprises Vs State of Karnataka

Deavaraju M Vs the State of Karnataka

Nandan Sunder Rajan Vs State Information Commissioner

Sri. Rangaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka

Mr. P Riyaz Vs M/S Jana Small Finance Bank Ltd.