Sri. Shivaprakash vs State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 1491 Kant

                            1



       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

         DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

                         BEFORE

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

              CRIMINAL PETITION No.6101/2020

BETWEEN:

1.     SRI SHIVAPRAKASH,
       S/O GOVIND SHETTY,
       AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.174/3,
       1ST MAIN ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM,
       BENGALURU 560020.

2.     SMT. PAVITHRA SHIVAPRAKASH,
       W/O SHIVAPRAKASH,
       AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.174/3,
       1ST MAIN ROAD SHESHADRIPURAM,
       BENGALURU 560020.                   ...PETITIONERS

            (BY SRI ABHISHEK PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR
       SRI SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     STATE OF KARNATAKA,
       BY SHESHADRIPURAM POLICE STATION,
       SHESHADRIPURAM SUB-DIVISION,
       BENGALURU CITY.
       REPRESENTED BY
       STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
       HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
       BENGALURU.
                                        2



2.     SRI NARASIMHA,
       S/O CHIKKANARASAIAH,
       AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
       R/AT NO.174/2, 1ST MAIN ROAD,
       SHESHADRIPURAM,
       BENGALURU.                                       ...RESPONDENTS

        (BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B. G., HCGP FOR R-1,
            SRI NISHANTH A.V., ADVOCATE FOR R-2)

     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE FIR AND COMPLAINT AND
ALL PENDING AND FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE
REGISTRATION OF THE FIR REGISTERED BY THE RESPONDENT
POLICE IN SHESHADRIPURAM P.S., IN CR.NO.59/2020 FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF
SC/ST (POA) ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE CCH-71 CITY
COURT COMPLEX, BANGALORE CITY, AS AGAINST THE
PETITIONERS HEREIN.

     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 Crime No.59/2020 for the offences

punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Scheduled

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

1989 ('SCST Act' for short).

2. The factual matrix of the case is that the

complainant, who has been arrayed as respondent No.2 in this

petition, lodged the complaint on 31.08.2020 against the

petitioners stating that the petitioners abused him in a filthy

language taking the caste name that he does not have any right

to draw the water from the well, when he was proceeding to

Swasthik Circle in front of Vishnu statue. Based on the

complaint, the police have registered the case for the offences

punishable under Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the SCST Act.

3. The main contention of the petitioners herein is that

there was a delay in lodging the complaint and also there is no

mention in the complaint that the incident of abusing the

complainant in the public place is viewed by any of the public.

Hence, there cannot be any proceedings against the petitioners.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.2

would submit that the complainant was taking the treatment,

hence there was a delay in lodging the complaint. The learned

counsel would submit that the incident was taken place in public

place and he was abused by taking the caste name with an

intention to humiliate him. Hence, there cannot be any order of

quashing FIR.

5. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned counsel for respondent No.2 and while

exercising the power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C., quashing of

the FIR, the Apex Court in the judgment in the case of

DINESHBHAI CHANDUBHAI PATEL v. THE STATE OF

GUJARAT reported in 2018 (3) SCC 104, summarized the

principles with regard to exercising of the context of challenge to

FIR. It is held that once the Court finds that the FIR does

disclose prima facie commission of any cognizable offence, it

should stay its hand and allow the investigating machinery to

step in to initiate the probe to unearth the crime in accordance

with the procedure prescribed in the Cr.P.C.

6. Having perused the offences invoked against the

petitioners are cognizable offence and when the cognizable

offences are invoked against the petitioners, the Investigating

Officer has to probe the matter and unearth the crime as

procedure established. Hence, I do not find any ground to quash

the proceedings initiated against the petitioners and if it is

interfered with by this Court, it amounts to premature as held by

the Apex Court in the case of HDFC SECURITIES LTD. AND

OTHERS v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER

reported in AIR 2017 SC 61.

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

following:

ORDER

(i) The petition is rejected.

(ii) Liberty is given to the petitioners to approach this Court after filing of the charge-sheet, if need arises.

Sd/-

JUDGE

MD