P P Harish Alias Pratham vs The State Of Karnataka
2021 Latest Caselaw 3060 Kant

                             1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2021

                          BEFORE

 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

        CRIMINAL PETITION No.3781 OF 2021
                      C/W
        CRIMINAL PETITION No.3758 OF 2021


In Crl.P.No.3781/2021

BETWEEN

1.    P.P.Harish alias Pratham,
      S/o P.S.Ponnappa,
      Aged about 36 years,

2.    P.S.Ponnappa,
      S/o Late Somaiah,
      Aged about 69 years,

      Both are residing at
      Paaremajalu House,
      Kumbaladaalu Village,
      Hodavaada Post,
      Madikeri Taluk and District
      Pin Code-571214.
                                         ...Petitioners
(By Sri R.K.Mahadeva, Advocate)


AND

1.    The State of Karnataka
      The Station House Officer,
      Napoklu Police Station,
                               2




     Madikeri Rural Circle,
     Kodagu District-571214.

     Represented by,
     State Public Prosecutor,
     High Court Building,
     Bengaluru-560001.

2.   Raju H.T.,
     S/o Thippa,
     Aged about 58 years,
     R/at Mutharmudi,
     Marnadu, Muth,
     Armudi Village,
     Kodagu-571214.
                                             ...Respondents
(By Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP for R1,
 R2 - served)

       This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., praying to quash the entire proceedings in Special
Case No.11/2021 (is arising out of Crime No.64/2020) of
Napoklu Police Station, Madikeri Rural Circle, Kodagu
District, for the alleged offences under Sections 447, 341,
504, 506, 354(B) read with 34 IPC and 3(1)(r)(s),
3(2)(Va), SC/ST Act 1989 on the file of the First Additional
District and Session Judge at Madikeri.


In Crl.P.No.3758/2021

BETWEEN

C.K.Vidyashree alias Vidya,
W/o Harish P.P.,
Aged about 35 years,

Present Address:
Qtr.No.819, Type II, Block No.54,
                              3




CRPF Camp Bhuvaneshwar,
Nayapalli, Orissa-751011.

Permanent Address:
Kumbaladalu, Napoklu Mandala,
Madikeri Taluk and District
Pin Code-571214.
                                               ...Petitioner
(By Sri R.K.Mahadeva, Advocate)


AND

1.    The State of Karnataka
      The Station House Officer,
      Napoklu Police Station,
      Madikeri Rural Circle,
      Kodagu District-571214.

      Represented by,
      State Public Prosecutor,
      High Court Building,
      Bengaluru-560001.

2.    Raju H.T.,
      S/o Thippa,
      Aged about 58 years,
      R/at Mutharmudi,
      Marnadu, Muth,
      Armudi Village,
      Kodagu-571214.
                                            ...Respondents
(By Sri R.D.Renukaradhya, HCGP for R1,
 R2 - served)

      This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482
Cr.P.C., praying to allow the petition and quash the entire
proceedings in Special Case No.11/2021 (is arising out of
Crime No.64/2020) of Napoklu Police Station, Madikeri
                               4




Rural Circle, Kodagu District, for the alleged offences under
Sections 447, 341, 504, 506, 354(B) read with 34 IPC and
3(1)(r)(s), 3(2)(Va), SC/ST Act 1989 on the file of the First
Additional District and Session Judge at Madikeri.


      These Criminal Petitions coming on for orders, this
day, the Court made the following:

                          ORDER

In Crl.P.No.3781/2021, as per the submission

made by the Government Pleader, respondent no.2

was notified through Investigating Officer on

20.05.2021. Nobody has entered appearance.

2. These two petitions, filed under Section 482

Cr.P.C., are disposed of by a common order. The

petitioners are facing trial in Spl.Case.No.11/2021 on

the file of 1st Addl. District and Sessions Judge,

Madikeri in relation to offences punishable under

Sections 447, 341, 504, 506, 354 IPC and Sections

3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST (POA) Act r/w

Section 34 of IPC.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the High Court Government Pleader. FIR was

registered on 26.12.2020 at the instance of one Raju,

who was a worker in the land of CW-2, Jayanthi. The

factual background is that one Shivappa, husband of

Jayanthi purchased coffee estate and agricultural

lands in Sy.No.268, 267, 277/4 of Kumbaladalu village

from one P.S. Uttaiah in the year 2000. This Uttaiah is

none other than the full brother of petitioner no.1 in

Crl.P.No.3781/2021. Shivappa, purchaser of these

lands appears to be residing at Bengaluru and his wife

Jayanthi is looking after the entire agricultural

operations residing at the village itself. It appears

that there existed some boundary dispute between

the petitioners and Jayanthi concerning their lands. In

this background, on 23.10.2021, the 2nd petitioner,

P.S.Ponnappa made a complaint to the police against

Shivappa, Balakrishna and Jayanthi alleging that they

had trespassed illegally into his land and in this regard

the police issued NCR. The parties agreed for settling

the matter between themselves. On 26.12.2020,

Jayanthi went to her land and by that time her

labourers had already arrived and were working. It is

alleged that at about 8.45 p.m. on 26.12.2020, all the

petitioners illegally entered into her lands and one of

the petitioners viz., P.P.Harish pushed her down.

When the labourers interfered for pacification of the

scuffle, it is stated that all the petitioners abused them

by taking the name of their caste and threatened to

kill Jayanthi. Regarding this incident, complaint was

made by a labourer by name Raju.

4. It is the argument of learned counsel for the

petitioners that if the statement of Jayanthi is read, it

becomes clear that there exists a boundary dispute

between the two parties. On 20.03.2020 itself, one of

the petitioners, i.e., Ponnappa had already made a

complaint against Jayanthi and in that regard the

police issued NCR. The incident dated 26.12.2020

actually did not take place at all. Jayanthi appears to

have instigated her labourer to make complaint

against the petitioners to wreak vengeance against

them. Going by FIR, if really the petitioners had

trespassed into the land of Jayanthi and she was

sought to be molested by one of the petitioners, she

should have made a complaint to the police. Rather

the complaint was made by one of the labourers. This

itself shows that Jayanthi has misused the law to

make a complaint against the petitioners taking

advantage of the situation that her labourers are the

members of schedule caste. This is clearly abuse of

process of law and court and therefore the

proceedings are to be quashed. In support of his

argument he places reliance on the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Hitesh Verma

Vs. The State of Uttarakhand and another

(Crl.A.No.707/2020).

5. Learned High Court Government Pleader

submits that the investigation reveals that the

labourers who are working in the fields of Jayanthi

were subjected to harassment in the name of their

caste. This is the reason why one of the labourers

made the complaint to the police for the registration

of FIR. Since charge sheet has been filed into the

court, the matter is to be tried and therefore the

petitions are to be dismissed.

6. If the facts are analyzed, it becomes clear

that there appears to be a border dispute between the

petitioners on one side and Jayanthi on the other side.

The petitioners do not dispute that Jayanthi and her

husband purchased the land from one Uttaiah, brother

of the petitioner in Crl.P.No.3781/2021. Existence of

border dispute may be probable and in this connection

some altercations might have taken place. This

becomes evident from the NCR issued on 26.12.2020

pursuant to the complaint made by Ponnappa against

Jayanthi and others. In this background, if the facts

are further analyzed, if really on 26.12.2020 the

incident had taken place and that time, one of the

petitioners had attempted to outrage her modesty, the

aggrieved person is Jayanthi. What appears is that

she might have instigated her labourers to lodge the

FIR against the petitioners as they belong to schedule

caste. The labourers are not the aggrieved persons

in the given scenario. It appears that investigating

officer has mechanically filed the charge sheet under

the impression that the first informant belonged to

schedule caste. Actually what is forthcoming is the

dispute between the petitioners and Jayanthi that has

triggered FIR being registered against the petitioners

at the instance of one of the labourers. Therefore it is

doubtful that the first informant was subjected to

atrocity in the name of his caste. In this background,

it may be further stated that the allegations with

regard to trespass and outraging the modesty of

Jayanthi also appears to be doubtful. The FIR might

have been registered against the petitioners to take

vengeance against them. If the petitioners are asked

to face trial, it amounts to abuse of process of court.

In this context, it is necessary to refer to the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Hitesh

Verma's case stated supra.

"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 schedule 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 schedule 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."

7. The dispute does not appear to have taken

place in the background of caste rivalry. It is purely

the border dispute, which is civil in nature. Hence the

following:

ORDER

Petitions are allowed. The proceedings in

Spl.Case.No.11/2021 on the file of 1st Addl. District

and Sessions Judge, Madikeri are quashed.

Sd/-

JUDGE sd