Karnataka High Court

Ravish S/O Nanjegowda B., vs The State Of Karnataka, on 26 February, 2021

Author: P.Krishna Bhat

                             -1-




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

                         BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P. KRISHNA BHAT
                  CRL.P. NO.100274/2017

BETWEEN:

1 . RAVISH S/O NANJEGOWDA B.,
AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: DIRECTOR,
D.I.M.H.A.N.S., R/O: DIRECTORS BUNGLOW,
OPP. GERMAN HOSPITAL,
DHARWAD.

2 . SREEVANI W/O GIRIDHAR R.,
AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: PROFESSOR,
R/O: FLAT B 101, R.T. ENCLAVE,
NEAR LIC QUARTERS,
NARAYANPUR, DHARWAD.

3 . BIDARIMATH S/O SIDDHARAMAYYA B.,
AGE: 68 YEARS, OCC: ADMINISTRATOR,
D.I.M.H.A.N.S., R/O: SHIVAGIRI,
DHARWAD.

4 . MANJUNATH S/O SUBRAMANYA K.,
AGE: 59 YEARS, OCC: ASST. ADMINISTRATOR,
D.I.M.H.A.N.S., R/O: C.B. NAGAR,
PLOT NO.260, DHARWAD.

5 . HEMANTH S/O KRISHNARAO KULKARNI,
AGE: 42 YEARS,
OCC: OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT,
R/O: GROUND FLOOR,
C FLAT,
                                 -2-




SRINIKETANA APARTMENTS,
GANDHINAGAR,
DHARWAD.                                ...PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. K L PATIL, ADV.)

AND

1 . THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH DHARWAD SUB-URBAN P.S.,
REPRESENTED BY
STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BUILDING,
DHARWAD.

2 . SUSHEELKUMAR
S/O VEERAPPA RONAD,
AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: LECTURER,
R/O: 5TH CROSS, MR NAGAR,
HEBBALI AGASI ROAD,
DHARWAD,
HUBBALLI DHARWAD CITY,
KARNATAKA.                              ....RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.PRAVEEN K.UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1
RESPONDENT NO.2 SERVED)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., SEEKING TO CALL FOR RELEVANT RECORDS AND QUASH
THE FIR AND COMPLAINT REGISTERED BY THE DHARWAD SUB-
URBAN POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO. 30 OF 2017 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 167 OF IPC AND UNDER
SECTION 3(1)(ix) OF THE SC/ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES)
ACT, 1989.

    THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR   ORDERS    ON   10.02.2021 COMING   ON  FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  -3-




                              ORDER

In this petition filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

petitioners are praying for quashing of the entire proceedings in

Crime No.30/2017 of Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station for

offences punishable under Sections 167 of IPC and under

Section 3(1)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

2. Petitioner No.1 is the Director of Dharwad Institute of

Mental Health and Neuro Sciences (DIMHANS) a preeminent

Mental Health Institution in the State of Karnataka. Petitioner

No.2 is a professor working in DIMHANS. Petitioner No.3 is

working as Administrator of DIMHANS. Petitioner No.4 and

petitioner No.5 are the Assistant Administrator and office

superintendent working in the establishment of DIMHANS. They

are accused Nos.1 to 5 in Crime No.30/2017 registered in Sub-

Urban police station for offences punishable under Sections 167

of IPC and Section 3(1)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes and the

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Respondent No.2 is the complainant in the said case and he is

working as a lecturer in DIMHANS, Dharwad.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners

seeking quashing of the entire proceedings pursuant to

registration of a case in Crime No.30/2017 of Sub-Urban P.S

Dharwad, at the instance of respondent No.2 submits that the

whole complaint is false and motivated. He submitted that

petitioner No.1/accused No.1 is the Director of DIMHANS and he

is a senior Doctor working in the said institution and the other

accused are professors and officers working in various

administrative capacity in the said institute. The learned counsel

submits that respondent No.2 seems to have some

disgruntlement on account of his lack of professional experience

and as a consequence thereof, he has not been able to get some

positions desired by him. He submits that on account of such

disgruntlement and taking advantage of the fact that he belongs

to a scheduled caste community, he is targeting the

administrative superiors working in DIMHANS including the

Director of the institution by filing false complaints under the

provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, in order to coerce them to

meet with his illegal demands. He also submitted that

respondent No.2 is in the habit of regularly lodging complaints

against innocent persons by taking recourse to the provisions of

the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 and he had also lodged such complaint in

MAG Crime No.58/2018 before the Dharwad Sub-urban P.S.

and after investigating into the same, the Assistant

Commissioner of Police of Dharwad city had filed a 'B' summary

report stating that the complaint is a false one. In the said

complaint, respondent No.2 had named 23 professors and senior

Doctors and other administrative staff working in DIMHANS

making allegations of commission of offences under 3(1)(ix) of

the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989 and Section 506 of IPC. He submits that if

such a complaint is allowed to be proceeded with by holding

investigation, the petitioners who are senior administrators of

the institute will be demoralized and they will not be in a

position to take administrative actions without fear. In support

of his contention, the learned counsel places reliance on

following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court:-

              i)     AIR 1992 SC 604 State of Haryana and
                     Others Vs. Ch. Bajan Lal and Others
              ii)    (2018) 6 SCC 454 Dr. Subhas Kashinath
                     Mahajan Vs. State of Maharashtra and
                     Another

iii) (2020) 10 SCC 710 Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand and another

iv) AIR 2011 SC 1905 Asmathunnisa Vs. State of Andra Pradesh.

v) (2008) 12 SCC 531 Gorige Pentaiah Vs. State of A.P.

              vi)    (2021) 1SCC 1 Amish Devgan Vs. Union of
                     India and Others

4. The learned HCGP, on the other hand, submitted

that respondent No.2 has given detailed accounts of the various

instances of harassments by the petitioners herein on account of

the fact that he belongs to Schedule Caste and therefore, this is

not a fit case for exercise of power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.

for quashing the complaint at the initial stage itself and he

therefore says that petition is liable to be dismissed.

5. I have given my anxious consideration to the

submission made on both sides and I have perused the FIR,

complaint and as well as the 'B' summary report filed in MAG

Crime No.58/2018 dated 6/5/2018 filed by the Assistant

Commissioner of Police Dharwad on a complaint of respondent

No.2 against the Senior Professors of Psychiatry and other

administrative staff of DIMHANS numbering about 23.

6. Respondent No.2 lodged the complaint in question

before the police on 11/2/2017 and it reads as follows:-

"UÉ,

¥ÉÆÃ°¸À ¸À¨ï, E£Àì¥ÉPÀÖgï, G¥À£ÀUÀgÀ ¥ÉÆÃ°¸À oÁuÉ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ

«µÀAiÀÄ: ¥À.eÁ/¥À.¥ÀA zËdð£Àå ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt PÁAiÉÄÝ 1989 ¸ÉPÀë£ï 3(1) (IX) CrAiÀÄ°è PÉÃ¸ï zÁR°¸ÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ,

£Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀÄ²Ã®PÀÄªÀiÁgÀ vÀAzÉ «ÃgÀ¥Àà gÉÆÃtzÀ ªÀAiÀÄ¸ÀÄì 33 ªÀµÀð eÁw: »AzÀÆ ªÀiÁaUÁgÀ (J¸ï.¹.) «¼Á¸À. PÉÃgï D¥sï ¸ÀÄgÉÃ±À PÀzÀA, 5£ÉÃ PÁæ¸À, JªÀiï. Dgï £ÀUÀgÀ, ºÉ§â½î CUÀ¹ gÉÆÃqÀ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀzÀ ¸ÀévÀ: mÉÊ¥ï ªÀiÁr ¸À°è¹zÀ ¦gÁå¢ K£ÉAzÀgÉ,

£Á£ÀÄ ªÉÄÃ¯É £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹zÀ «¼Á¸ÀzÀ°è £À£Àß vÀAzÉ, vÁ¬Ä, ºÉAqÀw, ªÀÄPÀÌ¼ÀÄ, ºÁUÀÆ £À£Àß vÀªÀÄä£À ºÉAqÀw ºÁUÀÆ ªÀÄPÀÌ¼ÉÆA¢UÉ ªÁ¸ÀªÁVgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. £Á£ÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ, rªÀiÁí£Àì zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ¸ÉÊPÁånæPÀ £À¹ðAUï «¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ: 11/08/2011 jAzÀ G¥À£Áå¸ÀPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄvÁÛ §A¢gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.

£À£Àß eÉÆvÉ £À£Àß «¨sÁUÀzÀ°è ²æÃªÀÄw ¸ÀÄ£ÀAzÀ f.n.

¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 11/08/2011 jAzÀ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ ¸À£ï 2012 gÀ°è r¥ÉÆèÃªÀiÁ ¸ÉÊPÁånæPÀ £À¹ðAUï PÉÆÃ¸Àð ªÉÆlÖªÉÆzÀ°UÉ ¥ÁægÀA©ü¹ £ÀªÀÄä ±ÀæªÀÄ¢AzÀ CvÀåAvÀ AiÀÄ±À¹éAiÀiÁV £ÀqÉ¹PÉÆAqÀÄ §A¢zÉÝÃªÉ. £ÀªÄÀ ä «¨sÁUÀPÉÌ 2014 jAzÀ qÁ. Cgï. ²æÃªÁtÂAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀÄÝ, EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÃjzÁV¤AzÀ MAzÀ®è MAzÀÄ jÃwAiÀÄ°è ¢£À¤vÀå £À£ÀUÉ PÉ®¸ÀzÀ°è ¹UÀÄªÀ CªÀPÁ±ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £À£ÀUÉ ¹UÀzÀAvÉ ªÀiÁr ªÀAa¸ÀÄvÁÛ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À ¤ÃqÀÄvÁÛ §A¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

±ÉÊPÀëtÂPÀ ªÀµÀð 2015-16£ÉÃ ¸Á°£À°è £ÀªÀÄä «¨sÁUÀPÉÌ ¨sÁgÀwÃAiÀÄ £À¹ðAUï PË¤ì¯ï (INC) 6 ¸ÁßvÀPÉÆÃvÀÛgÀ ¥ÀzÀ« PÉÆÃ¸ÀðUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÁægÀA©ü¸À®Ä C£ÀÄªÀÄw ¤ÃrzÀÄÝ DzÀgÉ PÉÃªÀ® 5 C¨sÀåyðUÀ¼ÀÄ PÉÆÃ¸ÀðUÀ½UÉ ¥ÀæªÉÃ±À ¥ÀqÉ¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À¹ðAUï PÉÆÃ¸ÀðUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ J¯Áè PÉ®¸ÀUÀ½UÉ, gÁfÃªÀ UÁA¢ü

DgÉÆÃUÀå «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄ ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ (RGUHS) «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ rªÀiÁí£Àì gÀªÀgÀÄ £ÉÃ«Ä¹zÀÄÝ, £Á£ÀÄ RGUHS «±Àé«zÁå®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¨sÉÃn ¤Ãr CvÀåAvÀ ¥ÁæªÀiÁtÂPÀªÁV ¤µÉ×¬ÄAzÀ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¹zÉÝÃ£É. DzÀgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 10-03-2016 gÀAzÀÄ PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è ¤µÁÌ¼Àf ªÀiÁrgÀÄªÀÅzÁV PÁgÀt PÉÃ½ 2 £ÉÆnÃ¸ï ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. CªÀÅUÀ¼À £ÀPÀ®Ä ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.

±ÉÊPÀëtÂPÀ ªÀµÀð 2015-16£ÉÃ ¸Á°£À°è ¸ÁßvÀPÉÆÃvÀgÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ½UÉ (UÉÊqÀ) ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ±Àð£À £À£Àß£ÀÄß ¤AiÉÆÃf¸À¯ÁVvÀÄÛ. CzÀgÀAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ±Àð£À ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÀÝ, ²æÃªÀÄw ¸ÀAzsÁå ¨sÀmï gÀªÀjUÉ ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ±Àð£À ¤ÃqÀÄªÁUÀ ªÀÄzsÀåzÀ°è £Á£ÉÆ§â zÀ°vÀ G¥À£Áå¸ÀPÀ JA§ PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÁV, £À£ÀUÉ CªÀPÁ±À¢AzÀ ªÀAa¸À®Ä, RGUHS «±Àé«zÁå¤®AiÀÄ¢AzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆa E®èzÉÃ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ °TvÀ DzsÁgÀ E®èzÉ, AiÀÄÄ¤ªÀ¹ðn gÀf¸ÀÖgÀ ºÁUÀÆ PÉÃ¸À ªÀPÀðgïªÀgÀÄ 3 ªÀµÀðzÀ ¨sÉÆÃzÀ£É C£ÀÄ¨sÀªÀ EgÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄªÀgÀÄ CAvÁ qÁ Dgï. ²æÃªÁtÂgÀªÀgÄÀ GzÉÝÃ±À¥ÀÆªÀðPÀªÁV £À£Àß ±ÉÊPÀëtÂPÀ G¥À£Áå¸ÀPÀ C£ÀÄ¨sÀªÀ C£ÀºÀðªÉAzÀÄ ªÀiËTPÀªÁV ¢£ÁAPÀ 12.01.2016 gÀAzÀÄ w½¹, £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ±Àð£À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä ¤AiÉÆÃfvÀ C¨sÀåyðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß »A¥ÀqÉAiÀÄ¯ÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

F §UÉÎ £Á£ÀÄ qÁ. ²æÃªÁtÂ ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀgÀÄ ¸ÉÊPÁånæPï £À¹ðAUï «¨sÁUÀ gÀªÀjUÉ ¢£ÁAPÀ 16/01/2016 gÀAzÀÄ gÁ¶ÖÃAiÀÄ £À¹ðAUï PË¤ì¯ï, £ÀªÀzÉºÀ° ªÀiÁUÀð¸ÀÆaUÀ¼À£ÀéAiÀÄ £À£Àß£ÀÄß ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ±ÀðPÀ£ÁUÀ®Ä CºÀðvÉ §UÉÎ °TvÀªÁV ¸Àà¶ÖPÀj¹zÀÝ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ£ÀÄß «¨sÁUÀzÀ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜjUÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.

- 10 -

¢£ÁAPÀ 27.01.2016 gÀAzÀÄ EzÉÃ ¥ÀvÀæPÉÌ ¢£ÁAPÀ 27.01.2016 gÀAzÀÄ £Á£ÀÄ AiÀÄÄ£ÀªÀ¹ðn gÀfµÀÖgï ºÁUÀÆ PÉÃ¸À ªÀPÀðgÀgÀªÀjUÉ ¸ÀA¥ÀQð¹zÁUÀ CªÀgÀÄ ¸ÁßvÀPÉÆÃvÀÛgÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ½UÉ ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ±Àð£À ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä 3 ªÀµÀðzÀ ¨sÉÆÃzÀ£É ªÀiÁrzÀ C£ÀÄ¨sÀªÀ EgÀ¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ w½¹gÀÄªÀgÀÄ CAvÁ »A§gÀºÀªÀ£ÀÄß qÁ. ²æÃªÁtÂAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä ºÀ¸ÁÛPÀëgÀzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ±ÀðPÀgÁUÀ®Ä C£ÀºÀð£ÉAzÀÄ GvÀÛgÀ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. »A§gÀºÀ ¤ÃrzÀ £ÀPÀ®Ä ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.

£ÀAvÀgÀ RGUHS ¥ÀvÀæ ¸ÀASÉå ACA/CDC/PGT-

NUR/DIMHANS/174/2015-16 ¢£ÁAPÀ 05/01/2016 ¤ÃrzÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ±ÀðPÀ£ÁUÀ®Ä CºÀð£ÉAzÀÄ gÀfµÀÖgÀ gÀªÀgÀÄ °TvÀªÁV ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀgÀ £ÀPÀ®Ä ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

RGUHS ¤ÃrzÀ CºÀðvÉ ¸ÀÆZÀ£ÉAiÀÄAvÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 04/01/2016, 16/01/2016, 27/01/2016, 14/03/2016 4 ¸À® qÁ. Dgï. ²æÃªÁtÂ ¥ÀæzsÁå¥ÀPÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ qÁ. gÀ«Ã±ï ©. J£ï. ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ rªÀiÁí£Àì gÀªÀjUÉ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÁßvÀPÉÆÃvÀÛgÀ C¨sÀåyðUÀ½UÉ ªÀiÁUÀðzÀ±Àð£À ¤ÃqÀ®Ä C¨sÀåyðAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤AiÉÆÃf¸À®Ä ªÀÄ£À« ¤ÃrzÉÝÃ£É. «¨sÁUÀzÀ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜjAzÁUÀ° CxÀªÁ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀjAzÁUÀ° £Á£ÉÆ§â zÀ°vÀ G¥À£Áå¸ÀPÀ£ÉA§ PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÁV CªÀPÁ±À¢AzÀ ªÀAa¸À®Ä E°èAiÀÄªÀgÉUÉ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆArgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. £Á£ÀÄ ¤ÃrzÀ ªÀÄ£À«AiÀÄ 4 ¥ÀæwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß EzÀgÉÆA¢UÉ ®UÀwÛ¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. C®èzÉ £ÉÆAzÁ¬ÄvÀ CAZÉ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹zÀ 03 ¹éPÀÈwUÀ¼À £ÀPÀ®£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹zÉÝÃ£É.

- 11 -

£ÁåAiÀÄAiÀÄÄvÀªÁV ¹UÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ CªÀPÁ±À ¹UÀ¢gÀÄªÀÅzÀjAzÀ ¨ÉÃ¸ÀvÀÄÛ ¢£ÁAPÀ 29/03/2016 gÀAzÀÄ f¯Áè¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ f¯Áè PÀbÉÃj ªÀÄÄSÁAvÀgÀ, £ÁUÀjPÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ eÁj ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ, ¨É¼ÀUÁ« EªÀjUÉ zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. EzÉ zÀÆgÀ£ÀÄß dAn ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀªÀiÁd PÀ¯Áåt E¯ÁSÉ, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ EªÀjUÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É. ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹zÉÝÃ£É.

£À£ÀUÉ rªÀiÁí£ïì/¹§âA¢/11/2016-17 ¢£ÁAPÀ / 2016 C¢üPÀÈvÀ eÁÕ¥À£À ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß 2017 d£ÀªÀj wAUÀ½£À°è ²æÃ. ©. J¸ï. ©zÀjªÀÄoÀ ªÀÄÄRå DqÀ½vÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ (¸ÀzÀå ¤ªÀÈvÀÛgÀÄ), ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ DqÀ½vÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁzÀ ²æÃ. ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ. ºÉÃªÀÄAvÀ PÀÄ®PÀtÂðAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ, ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ¢£ÁAPÀ £ÀªÀÄÆzÀ E®èzÀ, E®è¸À®èzÀ DgÉÆÃ¥ÀªÀj¹ ¤ÃrzÀ C¢üPÀÈvÀ eÁÕ¥À£À ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß d£ÀªÀj 2017 gÀ°è £À£ÀUÉ ¤Ãr ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. EzÀgÀ £ÀPÀ®Ä ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¸À¯ÁVzÉ.

rªÀiÁí£Àì ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀ PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è J®è ¸À©üÃPÀgÀ ªÀÄzsÀå £Á£ÉÆ§â zÀ°vÀ£ÉA§ PÁgÀt¢AzÀ, £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀ ºÁUÀÆ Mortality ¸À¨sÉUÉ ºÁdgÁUÀ®Ä AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ¸ÀÆZÀ£É ¤ÃqÀzÉ, Mortality ¸À¨sÉUÉ KPÉ §gÀ°®èªÉAzÀÄ, £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀæªÀÄPÉÊUÉÆ¼ÀÄîªÀÅzÁV, J¯Áè ¸À©üÃPÀgÀ JzÀÄgÀ°è £À£Àß£ÀÄß ¤°è¹ JZÀÑjPÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

qÁ. Dgï. ²æÃªÁtÂ, ªÀÄ»¼Á DAiÉÆÃUÀPÉÌ £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÞ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ zÀÆj£À C£ÀéAiÀÄ £ÉÃ«Ä¹gÀÄªÀ vÀ¤SÁ C¢üPÁj CªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ £À£Àß PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ°è §AzÀÄ vÀ¤SÉ £ÀqÉ¹zÀÄÝ zÀÆj£À

- 12 -

¸ÀvÁå ¸ÀvÀåzÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¹ ¤ÃrzÀÝgÀ §UÉÎ ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ ªÀÄÄRå DqÀ½vÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ²æÃ. ©. J¸ï. ©zÀjªÀÄoÀ, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ DqÀ½vÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ²æÃ. ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ, PÀbÉÃj C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÀÄ ²æÃ ºÉÃªÀÄAvÀ PÀÄ®PÀtÂð, ªÀÄ»¼Á DAiÉÆÃUÀ £ÉÃ«Ä¹gÀÄªÀ vÀ¤SÁ C¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ vÀªÀÄä C¥ÀàuÉ E®èzÉ £ÉÃgÀªÁV DAiÉÆÃUÀPÉÌ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀªÀiÁd¬Ä¹ ¥ÀvÀæ vÀ¥ÉàAzÀÄ DPÉëÃ¦¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £Á£ÀÄ DAiÉÆÃUÀPÉÌ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀªÀÄeÁ¬Ä¹ ºÉÃ½PÉ ºÁUÀÆ GvÀÛgÀzÀ ¥ÀæwAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀ®Ä £ÉÆÃn¸À eÁjUÉÆ½¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß ºÉÃ½PÉ «µÀAiÀÄ vÀ¤SÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼À UË¥Àå «µÀAiÀÄªÁVzÀÄÝ ºÁUÀÆ ºÉÃ½PÉAiÀÄ ¥ÀæwPÀÆqÀ £À£Àß°è EgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è. DzÀgÀÆ PÀÆqÀ, £Á£ÉÆ§â zÀ°vÀ£ÉA§ PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÁV £À£ÀUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ, »A¸É ¤ÃqÀ®Ä, DqÀ½vÀ ªÀÄAvÀæ zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃV¹PÉÆAqÀÄ ºÉÃ½PÉ ¥Àæw ¤ÃqÀ®Ä £À£ÀUÉ ¥ÀgÉÆÃPÀë ¨ÉzÀjPÉ ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ.

EµÉÖ¯Áè £À£ÀUÉ C£ÁåAiÀÄªÁVzÀÝgÀÄ £À£Àß PÀvÀðªÀåzÀ°è AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ ¯ÉÆÃ¥À«®èzÉ PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄwÛzÀÝgÀÆ PÀÆqÁ, £Á£ÀÄ zÀ°vÀ£ÉA§ MAzÉ ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀgÁzÀ qÁ. Dgï. ²æÃªÁtÂ, ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÁzÀ qÁ. gÀ«Ã±À ©. J£ï. ªÀÄÄRå DqÀ½vÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁVzÀÝ ²æÃ. ©. J¸ï. ©zÀjªÀÄoÀ, ¸ÀºÁAiÀÄPÀ DqÀ½vÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÁzÀ ²æÃ. ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ, PÀbÉÃjAiÀÄ C¢üÃPÀëPÀgÁzÀ ²æÃ ºÉÃªÀÄAvÀ PÀÄ®PÀtÂðAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ E®è ¸À®èzÀ DgÉÆÃ¥À ºÉÆj¹ ªÉÄªÉÆÃUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤Ãr £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÞ rªÀiÁí£Àì DqÀ½vÀ AiÀÄAvÀæ zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ¥Àr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ, GzÉÝÃ±À¥ÀÆªÀðPÀªÁV ªÉÄÃ¯Á¢üPÁjUÀ½UÉ £À£Àß §UÉÎ vÀ¥ÀÄà °TvÀ ªÀiÁ»wUÀ¼À£ÄÀ ß ¤Ãr, £À£ÀUÉ ¹UÀ§ºÀÄzÁzÀ CªÀPÁ±ÀUÀ½AzÀ ªÀAa¹ ¤gÀAvÀgÀªÁV eÁw ¤AzÀ£É ºÁUÀÆ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À ¤ÃqÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀ qÁ. Dgï. ²æÃªÁtÂ, qÁ gÀ«Ã±À ©. J£ï., ²æÃ ©. J¸ï. ©zÀjªÀÄoÀ, ²æÃ ªÀÄAdÄ£ÁxÀ ºÁUÀÆ ºÉÃªÀÄAvÀ PÀÄ®PÀtÂð «gÀÄzÀÞ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw/¥Àj²µÀÖ ¥ÀAUÀqÀ zËdð£Àå ¤AiÀÄAvÀæt PÁAiÉÄÝ 1989 ¸ÉPÀë£ï 3(1) (IX) CrAiÀÄ°è zÀÆgÀÄ zÁR°¹ CªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ

- 13 -

PÁ£ÀÆ£ÁvÀäPÀ PÀæªÀÄ PÉÊUÉÆ¼Àî¨ÉÃPÁV «£ÀAw ºÁUÀÆ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ gÀPÀëuÉ ¤ÃqÀ¨ÉÃPÁV «£ÀAw.

        £Á£ÉÆ§â         zÀ°vÀ     G¥À£Áå¸ÀPÀ      PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÀ
£ÁåAiÀÄAiÀÄÄvÀªÁV      ¹UÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ   CªÀPÁ±ÀzÀ     §UÉÎ    eÁj

¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ zÀÆgÀÄ MAzÀÄ C¥ÀgÁzsÀªÉAzÀÄ rªÀiÁí£Àì DqÀ½vÁ¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ¥ÀgÉÆÃPÀëªÁV ¨sÀAiÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¨ÉzÀjPÉ PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÁV ¢£À¤vÀå PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀð»¸À®Ä ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É, QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À ¤ÃqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ. PÁgÀt £À£Àß°è fUÀÄ¥Éì §gÀÄwÛzÉ. DvÀäºÀvÉå D¯ÉÆÃZÀ£ÉUÀ¼ÀÄ §gÀÄwÛªÉ. £Á£ÉÆ§â §qÀ zÀ°vÀ PÀÄlÄA§zÀªÀ£ÁVzÀÄÝ ErÃ PÀÄlÄA§ £À£Àß ªÉÄÃ¯É CªÀ®A©¹zÉ. £À£Àß ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÀgÀ PÉ®ªÀÅ wAUÀ¼À »AzÉ gÀ¸ÉÛ C¥ÀWÁvïzÀ°è ªÀÄÈvÀ¥ÀnÖzÀÄÝ CªÀgÀ PÀÄlÄA§ ¤ªÀðºÀuÉAiÀÄÆ PÀÆqÀ £À£Àß ºÉUÀ®Ä ªÉÄÃ¯É EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £À£Àß fÃªÀPÉÌ ºÁUÀÆ PÉ®¸ÀPÉÌ K£ÁzÀgÀÆ vÉÆAzÀgÉAiÀiÁzÀ°è rªÀiÁí£Àì ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ DqÀ½vÀ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼É PÁgÀtªÁVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£ÀUÉ CªÀjAzÀ ¸ÀÆPÀÛ gÀPÀëuÉ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä vÀªÀÄä°è «£ÀAw CzÉ.

£ÁUÀjPÀ ºÀPÀÄÌ eÁj ¤zÉÃð±À£Á®AiÀÄ ¨É¼ÀUÁ«, EªÀgÀÄ vÀªÀÄä »A§gÀºÀ ¥ÀvÀæzÀ°è rªÀiÁí£Àì ¸ÀA¸ÉÜAiÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À ¤ÃrzÀÝ°è, ¸ÀÜ½ÃAiÀÄ ¥ÉÆÃ°¸À oÁtÂAiÀÄ°è zÀÆgÀÄ ¤ÃqÀ®Ä ¸ÀÆa¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ. DzÀÝjAzÀ F ¢ªÀ¸À vÀªÀÄä oÁuÉUÉ §AzÀÄ ¦gÁå¢ ¸À°è¹gÀÄvÉÛÃ£É.

vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹, ¸ÀÄ²Ã®PÀÄªÀiÁgÀ «Ã. gÉÆÃtzÀ 8123813476 9886091602 zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ¢£ÁAPÀ 11.02.2017"

- 14 -

7. The gist of the complaint is that even though initially

he was designated to act as guide to one Smt. Sandhya Bhat

who was a P.G. student subsequently, in order to deprive him of

the said position, without any guidelines from the RGUHS

University, petitioner No.2 withdrew the same by issuing an oral

order. His further grievance in the complaint is that he was

humiliated by seeking clarification from him as to why he did

not attend a mortality meeting even though he was not asked to

attend such meeting and it was done in the presence of various

others solely on account of the fact that he belongs to Dalit

community and for humiliating him. Another grievance of

respondent No.2 in the complaint is that petitioner No.2 had

lodged a complaint with Women's Commission and when he

submitted a reply to the said Women's Commission, inspite of

such explanation being confidential, petitioners had harassed

him to furnish copy of the same to them. It is also alleged in the

complaint that various memos were issued to him making

baseless allegation against him only on account of the fact that

- 15 -

he belongs to Dalit Community and with the sole intention of

depriving him of opportunity.

8. The offences registered in the FIR are under Section

167 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes

and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.

Section 167 of IPC reads as follows:-

"167. Public servant framing an incorrect document with intent to cause injury.--Whoever, being a public servant, and being, as 1[such public servant, charged with the preparation or translation of any document or electronic record, frames, prepares or translates that document or electronic record] in a manner which he knows or believes to be incorrect, intending thereby to cause or knowing it to be likely that he may thereby cause injury to any person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."

9. The Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was amended with effect from

26/1/2016 and therefore, there was no provision under Section

3(1)(ix) of the Act in existence as on the date of registration of

case in Crime No.30/2017. Therefore, the corresponding

- 16 -

provision applicable as on the date of registration of this case is

Section 3(1)(q) of the Amended Act. It reads as follows:-

"3(1)(q) - gives any false or frivolous information to

any public servant and thereby causes such public

servant to use his lawful power to the injury or

annoyance of a member of a Scheduled Caste or a

Scheduled Tribe;"

10. Perusal of the complaint which is extracted

herein above shows that as per the say of the complainant

himself, petitioner No.1 had nominated the complainant as a

liaison officer for visiting RGUHS University for doing the works

connected to the Administration of DIMHANS, Dharwad.

Complainant has further claimed that he had discharged the

said work diligently. The said statement in the complaint itself

shows that the Director was not showing any animosity towards

him on account of the alleged fact that he belongs to Scheduled

Caste. One of the main allegations in the complaint is that he

was initially nominated to be a guide to a student and

subsequently that was withdrawn without there being any

- 17 -

instruction from the Rajiv Gandi University of Health Sciences.

The various statements made by the complainant in the

complaint itself shows that there were several correspondences

between the university, the complainant and petitioner No.2 on

the subject in this connection, thereby clearly showing that it

was an administrative action taken based on the understanding

of circulars/notification by petitioner No.2. From the same, it

cannot be inferred by any stretch of imagination that there was

any caste motive behind the same. He also stated in the

complaint that on account of his not being able to get

opportunity, he had lodged a complaint dated 29/3/2016 to the

Civil Rights Enforcement Cell, Belgavi to the Deputy

Commissioner. Insofar as the allegation in the complaint, that

he was rebuked and humiliated for not participating in mortality

meeting is concerned, the complaint does not give any

particulars like the date or month or year of the meeting and it

is extremely vague. Apart from the same, there is no specific

allegation that there was any caste related abuses made to him

in the said meeting. The only thing that is attributed with

- 18 -

regard to the said meeting is that he was subjected to

humiliation on account of the fact that he belongs to a Dalit

community. The allegation is extremely vague for any

investigation to be held on the said basis. Similar is the nature

of the allegation made with regard to the alleged threat held by

the petitioners to him in order to part with a copy of the

response representation submitted by respondent No.2 to the

Womens' Commission. There are no details with regard to the

date, month or year for any meaningful investigation to be held

in the case. Similarly vague allegation is made against the

petitioners by stating that only on account of the fact that he

belongs to the Dalit Community, the petitioners were

deliberately giving false information against him and they were

depriving him of the opportunity due to him. There is no

mention about any specific caste abuse made by the petitioners

to him with reference to the words used, date of the incidents

etc. anywhere in the complaint. Learned counsel in this behalf

pointed out the 'B' summary report filed by the A.C.P., Dharwad

in MAG Crime No.58/2018. In the said case, respondent No.2

- 19 -

was a complainant and he had arraigned 23 senior professors of

psychiatry and administrative staff working in DIMHANS as the

accused persons. After holding investigation, the A.C.P. has

submitted a report that the said complaint was given by

respondent No.2 only on account of the fact that he was not

discharging his duties properly and in view of the same his

administrative superiors had issued notices etc. It is also

disclosed from the said 'B' summary report that respondent No.2

was in the habit of threatening the staff and officers working in

DIMHANS that he would send them to jail by filing caste abuse

cases against them. The ACP has also stated in the 'B' summary

report that respondent No.2 was misusing the Scheduled Castes

and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,

and had filed false complaints before the Court.

11. Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Hitesh Verma Vs.

State of Uttarakhand and another reported in 2020 10 SCC

710 has observed as follows:-

"10. The Act was enacted to improve the social economic conditions of the vulnerable sections of the

- 20 -

society as they have been subjected to various offences such as indignities, humiliations and harassment. They have been deprived of life and property as well. The object of the Act is thus to punish the violators who inflict indignities, humiliations and harassment and commit the offence as defined under Section 3 of the Act. The Act is thus intended to punish the acts of the upper caste against the vulnerable section of the society for the reason that they belong to a particular community.

12. The basic ingredients of the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act can be classified as "1) intentionally insults or intimidates with intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and 2) in any place within public view".

13. The offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act would indicate the ingredient of intentional insult and intimidation with an intent to humiliate a member of a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe. All insults or intimidations to a person will not be an offence under the Act unless such insult or intimidation is on account of victim belonging to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe. The object of the Act is to improve the socio- economic conditions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes as they are denied number of civil rights. Thus, an offence under the Act would be made out when a member of the vulnerable section of the Society is subjected to indignities, humiliations and harassment. The assertion of title over the land by either of the parties is not due to either the indignities, humiliations or harassment. Every citizen has a right to avail their remedies in accordance with law. Therefore, if the appellant or his family members have invoked jurisdiction of the civil court, or that respondent No.2 has invoked the jurisdiction of the civil court, then the

- 21 -

parties are availing their remedies in accordance with the procedure established by law. Such action is not for the reason that respondent No.2 is member of Scheduled Caste.

16. There is a dispute about the possession of the land which is the subject matter of civil dispute between the parties as per respondent No.2 herself. Due to dispute, appellant and others were not permitting respondent No.2 to cultivate the land for the last six months. Since the matter is regarding possession of property pending before the Civil Court, any dispute arising on account of possession of the said property would not disclose an offence under the Act unless the victim is abused, intimated or harassed only for the reason that she belongs to Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe.

18. Therefore, offence under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to such caste. In the present case, the parties are litigating over possession of the land. The allegation of hurling of abuses is against a person who claims title over the property. If such person happens to be a Scheduled Caste, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) of the Act is not made out.

20. Later, while examining the constitutionality of the provisions of the Amending Act (Central Act No. 27 of 2018), this Court in a judgment reported as Prathvi Raj Chauhan v. Union of India & Ors.9 held that proceedings can be quashed under Section 482 of the Code. It was held as under:

"12. The Court can, in exceptional cases, exercise power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the cases to

- 22 -

prevent misuse of provisions on settled parameters, as already observed while deciding the review petitions. The legal position is clear, and no argument to the contrary has been raised."

22. The appellant had sought quashing of the charge- sheet on the ground that the allegation does not make out an offence under the Act against the appellant merely because respondent No. 2 was a Scheduled Caste since the property dispute was not on account of the fact that respondent No. 2 was a Scheduled Caste. The property disputes between a vulnerable section of the society and a person of upper caste will not disclose any offence under the Act unless, the allegations are on account of the victim being a Scheduled Caste. Still further, the finding that the appellant was aware of the caste of the informant is wholly inconsequential as the knowledge does not bar, any person to protect his rights by way of a procedure established by law."

12. On an entire perusal of the complaint lodged by

respondent No.2 and also the fact that petitioners are all his

administrative superiors and further similar complaint lodged by

respondent No.2 in MAG Crime No.58/2018 against 23 officials

working in DIMHANS where the police had filed 'B' Summary

report stating that it was a false complaint, it is evident that

respondent No.2 was trying to misuse the provisions of the Act

in order to prevent the petitioners from taking administrative

- 23 -

action against him. As already noticed, the complaint itself

discloses that the Director of Institution has nominated him as a

liaison officer to do the work of DIMHANS by visiting the

university. The complaint itself shows that there were lot of

correspondence done by the petitioners before withdrawing

guide ship which was offered to him earlier. The complaint is

extremely vague insofar as the other allegations are concerned.

In that view of the matter, there is no good ground to allow the

proceedings against the petitioners who are administrative

officers of DIMHANS on a complaint of this nature and further, I

am of the view that it is a fit case for exercising the power under

Section 482 of CR.P. by quashing the said complaint.

13. Hence, the following:

ORDER The above Petition is allowed.

The entire proceedings in Crime No.30/2017 of Dharwad Sub Urban police for offences punishable under Sections 167 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(ix) of the Scheduled Castes and the