1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
CRIMINAL PETITION No.5576/2020
BETWEEN:
1. G. SRINIVAS,
S/O GOPAL GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
R/AT NO.80, NEAR PANCHAYATH,
BEKUPI VILLAGE,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMNAGAR DISTRICT.
2. SMT. R.L. SUNEETHA @ JYOTHI,
W/O SRINIVAS,
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS,
R/AT NO.80, NEAR PANCHAYATH,
BEKUPI VILLAGE,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMNAGAR DISTRICT.
3. SHIVANAGU @ SHIVANAGU,
S/O BYREGOWDA,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/AT NO.80, NEAR PANCHAYATH,
BEKUPI VILLAGE,
KANAKAPURA TALUK,
RAMNAGAR DISTRICT.
4. SRI RAVANAPPA,
S/O VEERABADRAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
R/AT No.15, 4TH CROSS,
2
GANGAMMA LAYOUT AND:
HEBBALA,
BANGALORE - 560 024.
5. MANJUNATH REDDY,
S/O PATTABI RAMAREDDY,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/AT NO.305, 4TH ROAD,
DEVASANDRA,
BENGALORE - 560 036.
ALSO AT C/O RAVANAPPA,
ADVOCATE, NO.305, 4TH ROAD,
DEVASANDRA,
BANGALORE - 560 036. ... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI MURALIDHARA G.S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE BY BIRUR POLICE STATION,
CHIKKAMAGALORE DISTRICT,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT.
2. SMT. YALLAMMA,
W/O RAJESH,
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS,
R/O KODIHALLI (V),
KADUR TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU. ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R-1,
R-2 SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE CHARGE SHEET AT ANNEXURE-B
SUBMITTED BY THE RESPONDENT AND PURSUANT TO THE CHARGE
SHEET THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE IN SPL.C.NO.78/2020
PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT CHIKKAMAGALURU.
3
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State.
2. This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. praying this Court to quash the charge-sheet at Annexure-B filed by the respondent police for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 323 and 363 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ('SCST Act' for short).
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the complainant Yallamma in her complaint dated 11.07.2019 made the allegation against the petitioners that her son's marriage was solemnized on 17.3.2019. The same was subsequently registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar on 22.04.2019. The same was not objected by the relatives of her daughter-in-law. That on 08.07.2019 at about 10.45 p.m. when her son and 4 daughter-in-law were there in the house, the petitioners along with others trespassed the house and assaulted her son and tried to take away his life. When her husband intervened and expressed that they have married after they fell in love with each other, her husband was also subjected to assault. The petitioners have abused telling that they belong to backward caste and threatened the life. Based on the complaint, the police have registered the case and thereafter investigation is conducted and filed the charge-sheet. Hence, the present petition is filed by accused Nos.1 to 5.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that no such incident was taken place and a false case has been registered against the petitioners. The learned counsel would submit that the offence under the special enactment does not attract and no such incident took place in the public place and also there are no ingredients of the offence punishable under Sections 143, 147, 149 and 323 of IPC and while filing the charge-sheet, the police have dropped Section 363 of IPC, which was invoked earlier.
5
5. Per contra, the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the incident was taken place on 08.07.2019 and all the petitioners went in a vehicle by forming an unlawful assembly and abused in a filthy language and assaulted. The victim/injured took treatment in the hospital and the wound certificate supports that the incident took place and sustained simple injuries. Hence, there are no grounds.
6. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned High Court Government Pleader appearing for the State and on perusal of the complaint, it discloses with regard to that the complainant's son and daughter-in-law both fell in love and thereafter marriage was solemnized and subsequently it was registered. A specific allegation is with regard to the incident dated 08.07.2019 at 10.45 p.m. and in the complaint, no specific allegation is made that they took caste name of the complainant except stating that they belong to backward caste and also the incident took place in the house and not in the public place. The Apex Court in its 6 recent judgment has held that if any such abuse is made in the four walls of the house, it does not attract the offence under special enactment, unless it has resulted humiliation in the public place.
7. Having perused the charge-sheet material and the statement of the witnesses and the documents and when the ingredients of Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SCST Act does not attract, continuing the proceedings for the said offence amounts to abuse of process which leads to miscarriage of justice.
8. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is partly allowed.
(ii) The filing of the charge-sheet for the offence punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SCST Act, is hereby quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE MD