Karnataka High Court
Ambanna And Anr vs The State Of Karnataka And Ors on 10 December, 2021
Bench: H.P.Sandesh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.200151/2021
BETWEEN:
1. AMBRANNA
S/O PIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
OCC: AGRI
2. AMBRANNA
S/O BHIMANNA DODDAMANI
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
OCC: AGRI
BOTH R/O HANDRAL (S.D.) VILLAGE
TQ. SHORAPUR
DIST. YADGIR
... APPELLANTS
(BY SRI SHIVA KUMAR MALIPATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
THROUGH SHORAPUR P.S.
(CR.NO.13/2021)
REP. BY SPP HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH - 585 107
2. PARAMANNA
S/O SABAVVA DODDAMANI
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
OCC: COOLIE
2
3. SMT. SABAVVA @ LACHAMAVVA
W/O CHANDRAPPA DODDAMANI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCC: COOLIE
4. CHANDRAKALA
W/O PARAMANNA DODDAMANI
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
OCC: COOLIE
5. SHASNTAMMA
W/O SHIVAPPA BONAL
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
OCC: COOLIE
6. PARVATHI
W/O BHEEMAPPA GUDIMANI
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS
OCC: COOLIE
ALL R/O HANDRAL S.D. VILLAGE
TQ. SHORAPUR
DIST. YADGIR - 585 220
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP FOR 1
R2 TO R6 ARE SERVED)
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14 OF
SC/ST (PA ACT) 1989 R/W SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C PRAYING
TO DIRECT THE CONCERNED POLICE TO RELEASE THE
APPELLANTS ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF ARREST IN
CR.NO.13/2021 OF SHORAPUR P.S. FOR THE OFFENCES U/SEC.
143, 147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 R/W 149 OF IPC AND
SEC.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(w), 3(2)(v), 3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST ACT
1989 AND ETC.
3
THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants and the learned High Court Government Pleader
appearing for the State.
2. The factual matrix of the case is that these two
petitioners taking the caste name of the complainant
abused him in a filthy language in a public place and
subjected him to humiliation in a public view. Based on
the complaint, the police have registered the case for the
offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 323, 324,
307, 504, 506 R/W 149 of IPC and Sec.3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(1)(w), 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST Act, 1989.
3. The learned counsel for the appellants would
vehemently contend that having considered the contents
of the complaint it discloses that it does not attract the
offence under the Special Enactment and bar under
Section 18-A of the Special Enactment does not attracts
and the other allegations made in the complaint are
frivolous and only to implicate these appellants in the
crime case, a false allegations are made.
4. Per contra, the learned High Court Government
Pleader appearing for the State would submit that the
specific words which have been used in a public view has
been stated in the complaint. When the complaint clearly
discloses that taking the caste name, subjected the victim
for humiliation in a public view, there is a bar under
Section 18-A of the Special Enactment.
5. Having heard the respective counsel and also
on perusal of the complaint averments there is a force in
the contention of the counsel appearing for the State that
these appellants have referred the caste name of the
complainant and the incident was also taken place in a
public view. When such being the factual aspects, when
prima facie complaint averments discloses that taking the
caste name, abused him, the bar under Section 18-A
attracts. The Apex Court also in the judgment of
PRATHVI RAJ CHAUHAN vs UNION OF INDIA reported
in (2020)4 SCC 727 held that if the complaint discloses
prima facie attracting the offence under the Special
Enactment, the Court cannot exercise the powers invoking
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. When such being the case, it is not
a fit case to invoke Section 438 of Cr.P.C and also invoke
enabling provisions under Section 14 of the Special
Enactment to grant the relief as sought.
6. In view of the discussion made above, I pass
the following:
ORDER
The appeal is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
SAN
