Sri S a Ram Prakash Vs the State of Karnataka

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ANOP KUMAR M.V., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 528 OF THE BHARATIYA NAGARIK SURAKSHA SANHITA 2023 PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KOLAR IN SPL.C.NO.40/2024 INCLUDING THE CHARGE SHEET FILED BY THE R-1 IN CRIME NO.95/2018 (ANNEXURE-D) AS THE SAME ARE ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN

¶16

(BY SRI. ANOP KUMAR M.V., HCGP FOR R1 AND R2)

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2025:KHC:9450 WP No. 4918 of 2025

¶19

CR.P.NO.2441/2018 AND IN VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND THE RIGHT TO LIBERTY HAS BEEN INFRINGED IN SO FAR PETITIONER CONCERNED ONLY AND ETC.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

The petitioner - accused No.1, who has been charge sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 8 and 9 of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (for short `Act, 2013') and Section 3 Clause 1(j) of SC/ST POA Act, 1989, is before this Court seeking relief.

¶24

The prosecution alleges that accused No.1 along with others fully knowing that seven persons who belong to scheduled caste were employed to clean the underground sewage pipe-line manually without providing any safety measures within the city limits of Kolar City despite knowing fully well that manual sewage cleaning is prohibited under the provisions of the Act, 2013.

¶25

Accused No.2 had challenged the registration of FIR, which is culminating in filing the charge sheet filed against this petition, and this Court in Crl.P No.2441/2018 vide order dated 13.7.2022 quashed the impugned FIR by observing as follows:

¶26

"6. The allegation against the petitioner/accused and other accused is that they have employed the persons belonging to the SC and ST community to clean the sewage pipe-line manually and have committed the aforesaid offences under the Act, 2013. Section 10 of the Act, 2013

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:9450 WP No. 4918 of 2025

¶28

prescribes that the learned Magistrate can take cognizance of the offence only on complaint filed by the officer specified under the Act. Hence the registration of the FIR filed by the first respondent against the petitioner is contrary to section 10 of the Act, 2013 and the same is without authority of law.

¶29

To constitute the offence under Section 3(1)(j) of the SC & ST Act, a person must be employed for manual scavenging knowing fully well that he belongs to SC & ST community. Section 3(1)(j) of the SC & ST Act reads as hereunder:

¶30

“3(1)(j) Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe,- makes a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe to do manual scavenging or employs or permits the employment of such member for such purpose”.

¶31

In the present case, there is no allegation against the petitioner-accused No.2 that he had knowledge that the persons who were employed to do manual scavenging belong to the SC and ST community. In the absence of essential ingredients so as to constitute the commission of the offence under Section 3(1)(j) of the SC and ST Act, the registration of the FIR is also impermissible."

¶32

Therefore, this petition also requires to be disposed of in terms of the order passed in the aforesaid petition. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The impugned proceedings in Spl.C No.40/2024 pending on the file of the learned II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Kolar, insofar as it relates to the petitioner - accused No.1 is hereby quashed.

¶33

Sd/(HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR) JUDGE

¶34

BKM

¶35

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 135

Sri S a Ram Prakash v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri S a Ram Prakash 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

D S Venkatesh Vs Bhanumathi D v

Mr Siddaramaiah Vs Smt Indiramma

Sri. Zabi Ulla Vs State by

Keshav Murthy Vs State of Karnataka

Mrs. Champaka Vs Mrs. Prabhamani.K. S

Sri Rangaswamy Vs the State of Karnataka by