Smt Anusuya vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 1897 Kant

                               1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

           DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021

                           BEFORE

            THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH

               CRIMINAL PETITION NO.1650/2021

BETWEEN:

SMT. ANUSUYA
W/O. K.T. MAHESH
AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS
R/AT KUDIGE VILLAGE & POST
KUSHALNAGAR HOBLI
SOMWARPETE TALUK
KODAGU DISTRICT-572301.
                                             ... PETITIONER

       [BY SRI PRATHEEP K.C., ADVOCATE-(THROUGH V.C.)]

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY KUSHALNAGAR RURAL POLICE
       KODAGU DISTRICT
       REP. BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
       BENGALURU-560001

2.     SRI. A.S. KRISHNA
       S/O. SHIVANNA
       AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
       C/O. KUNNACHA
       KUDIGE VILLAGE & POST
       KUSHALNAGAR HOBLI
                                 2



      SOMWARPETE TALUK
      KODAGU DISTRICT-34.
                                                ... RESPONDENTS

              [BY SRI SHOWRI H.R. HCGP FOR R1;
     SRI N.J.KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 -(THROUGH V.C.)]

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN
SPL.C.NO.41/2020 PENDING ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KODAGU-MADIKERI FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504 AND 324 R/W
SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r) AND 3(1)(s) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT INSOFAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED.

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION
THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

                           ORDER

This petition is filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying

this Court to quash the entire proceedings in Special Case

No.41/2020 pending on the file of I Additional District & Sessions

Judge, Kodagu, Madikeri for the offences punishable under

Sections 504, 324, read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections

3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the SCST Act' for

short).

2. The factual matrix of the case is that, respondent

No.2 had lodged a complaint with the police-first respondent

making the allegation that on 07.03.2020 at about 8:45 a.m,

when the complainant went near the house of the accused

persons, they have abused and assaulted with iron-pipe and also

the brick and also abused taking his case name. Based on the

complaint, the police have registered a case, investigated the

matter and filed the charge sheet.

3. The petitioner is accused No.3. The learned counsel

for the petitioner would vehemently contend that no specific

allegation is made against this petitioner and only a reference is

made that she took the name of the caste of the complainant

and the only allegation against accused Nos.1 and 2 and they

are not the petitioners before this court. The learned counsel

would vehemently contend that in the complaint, an allegation is

made that they were pushed outside and taking note of the said

averment in the complaint, the learned counsel relied upon the

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Hitesh Verma v.

State of Uttarakhand and another reported in AIR 2020 SC

5584, and brought to the notice of this Court paragraph No.15

of the judgment, wherein, the Apex Court observed that the

incident has taken place within the four walls of the house and

no public view inside the house, then, the offence does not

attract.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent

No.2/complainant brought to the notice of this Court, the sketch,

which is available at page No.37 and referring to the sketch, the

learned counsel would contend that the incident place is

mentioned as outside the house and not inside the house and

there are other houses at the incident place and the same is in

public view. The learned counsel brought to the notice of this

Court paragraph No.14 of the Judgment, wherein, the Apex

Court discussed with regard to the 'place in public view'. Hence,

the judgment cited by the petitioner is not applicable to the facts

of the case on hand and the same helps the complainant.

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader appearing

for respondent No.1/State would contend that the incident was

taken place not inside the house and it is outside the house. The

complainant in the complaint made the specific allegations that

by taking the caste name abused, whether the eyewitness

witnessed the same or not is immaterial when the complainant

himself speaks with regard to making the abuse by taking the

caste name.

6. Having heard the arguments of the respective

counsel and also on perusal of the complaint, a specific

allegation is made with regard to taking the caste name abused

the complainant. However, it is rightly pointed out by the

learned counsel for the petitioner that no allegation against this

petitioner with regard to the assault and invoking of the offence

under Section 324 of IPC.

7. The contention of the learned counsel for the

petitioner is that the judgment of the Apex Court comes to the

aid of the petitioner cannot be accepted, wherein, the Apex

Court discussed with regard to an incident was taken place inside

the four walls of the house and no public view. In the case on

hand, the incident was taken place outside the house and the

sketch also discloses that the other houses surrounding the place

of the incident. The learned counsel for respondent No.2 rightly

brought to the notice of this Court in paragraph No.14 of the

Judgment that the Apex Court discussed with regard to the

'place in public view'.

8. Having taken note of the incident was taken place

outside the house and there are other public houses and one

witness Venkatesha also in his statement, he witnessed the

incident of assault and also the abuse. No doubt, he has not

referred in the statement that whether they have abused by

taking caste name or not, but the complainant statement is very

specific that they abused by taking the caste name. When such

being the factual aspects of the case, the matter requires a trial.

The disputed questions and the truthfulness of the statement of

witnesses cannot be ascertained sitting under Section 482 of

Cr.P.C.,

9. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is dismissed.

(ii) However, it is made it clear that there is no reference of assault against the present petitioner invoking Section 324 of IPC and the Trial Court while framing the charge take note of the same.

In view of dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.1/2021 for

stay does not survive for consideration and the same stands

disposed of.

Sd/-

JUDGE

cp*