Karnataka High Court

Maheshgouda vs State Of Karnataka And Anr on 7 January, 2022

Bench: V Srishananda

                          1




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                 KALABURAGI BENCH

      DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2022

                        BEFORE

      THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. SRISHANANDA

        CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.200247/2021

BETWEEN
 MAHESHGOUDA
S/O RUDRANNAGOUDA
AGED 46 YEARS,
OCC.AGRICULTURE,
R/O ABBE TUMKUR
VILLAGE, TQ AND DIST.
YADGIRI.

                                          ...APPELLANT

(BY SRI ASHOK MULAGE, ADVOCATE)

AND

1.    STATE OF KARNATAKA
      THROUGH YADGIRI
      TOWN POLICE STATION,
      YADGIRI, REPRESENTED BY ADDL.
      SPP, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      KALABURAGI BENCH - 585107.

2.    SHARNAPPA S/O SHEKAPPA KAVALI
      AGED 24 YEARS, OCC.AGRICULTURE,
      R/O ABBE TUMKUR VILLAGE,
      TQ AND DIST. YADGIRI.

                                        ...RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI SHARANABASAPPA M. PATIL, HCGP FOR R1)
                                 2




      THIS CRL.A FILED U/SEC. 14-A (2) OF SC/ST (PA) ACT,
PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO
ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY
THE SESSIONS JUDGE, YADGIRI IN CRL.MISC.NO.674/2021
DATED 14.12.2021 AND DIRECT THE RESPONDENT POLICE TO
ENLARGE THE ACCUSED/APPELLANT ON BAIL IN THE EVENT OF
HIS ARREST IN CRIME NO.117/2021 OF YADGIRI TOWN POLICE
STATION, YADGIRI FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC.341, 323, 504,
506 OF IPC AND U/SEC.3(1)(R), 3(1)(S), 3(2)(V-A) OF SC/ST
(PA) ACT, PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE DIST. AND SESSIONS
COURT, YADGIRI IN FIR NO.85/2021.

     THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                          JUDGMENT

Statement of objections filed by the learned High

Court Government Pleader.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant

and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the

respondent - State.

3. The present appeal is filed under Section

14(A)(2) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short 'SC/ST (PA)

Act').

4. Brief facts of the case are as under:

A complaint came to be lodged by Sri Sharnappa S/o

Shekappa Kavali contending that on 04.11.2021 at about

7.30 p.m., when he was proceeding in front of DON

BOSCO School in Mudnal village of Yadgiri district, the

accused/appellant intercepted his free movement and

abused him by taking out his caste name and also gave

him life threat and assaulted him on his head, chest and

also slapped him. Thereafter, Saddam and Vishwaradhya

have pacified the quarrel and he had been to Government

Hospital at Yadgiri for treatment. Upon the receipt of MLC

information from Yadgiri Government Hospital, Yadgiri

Rural police visited the hospital and thereafter, the

complainant had given the complaint after enquiring with

the family members. Subsequently, a written complaint

was lodged and police registered the case in Crime

No.117/2021 for the offence punishable under Sections

341, 323, 504, 506 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s)

and 3(2)(v-a) of the SC/St (PA) Act. After registration of

the complaint, the appellant approached the District Court,

Yadgiri under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The learned Judge

after contest, dismissed the application seeking grant of

anticipatory bail on the ground that Section 18 of the

SC/ST (PA) Act bars for grant of anticipatory bail.

5. Being aggrieved by the same, the

accused/appellant is before this Court in this appeal.

6. In this appeal, following grounds have been

urged.

a) "That the petitioner is innocent of the offence alleged

against him and he has been falsely implicated in the

above case at the instance of the ill wishers of the

petitioner.

b) That the offence alleged against the petitioner are not

punishable with death of imprisonment for life.

c) That the complainant in his complaint itself has stated

that there is a dispute regarding ownership of land

between the complainant and Rajashekhar and the

appellant, with respect to land Sy.No.6/1 measuring 1

acre 34 guntas. It goes to show that the complainant by

misusing the provisions of SC/ST Act has falsely lodged

the complaint.

d) That the land Sy.No.6/1 has been sold by the ancestors of

the complainant namely Rudrappa S/o. Bheemappa Kavali

and Chandrashekhar S/o. Bheemappa Kavali on

29.11.1999 in favour of Rajashekhar S/o. Basanna and

since then he was owner and in possession of and

enjoyment of the said land without interference by

anybody.

e) Thereafter again on 22.06.2004 the above two persons

along with Hanamanth have sold 0-12 guntas of land in

Sy.No.6/1 out of 3 acre 28 guntas in favour of Rajshekhar

S/o. Basanna for a consideration amount of Rs.6,000/-

and the same was also mutated and is in peaceful

possession and enjoyment of the same.

f) That the said Rajashekar S/o. Basannagouda has gifted

the land Sy.No.6/3 measuring 1 acre 34 guntas in favour

of his daughter Pavitra W/o Sakreppaguoda on

28.06.2021 vide registered doc. No.1337/2021-2022 and

said Pavitra has filed an application for mutation before

the revenue authorities and in the meanwhile the

complainant has filed an objection for mutation and the

revenue authorities after holding an enquiry have ordered

for mutation on 02.11.2021.

g) That after registration of the gift deed and mutation

application was pending even after completion of 30 days

period, the Pavitra has lodged the complaint against the

revenue authorities and antisocial elements to black main

and threatening to lodge atrocity case against them to

the higher officers on 29.09.2021 itself and the mutation

was effected on 02.11.2021 and the appellant is none

other than the brother of the husband of the said Pavitra

and the complainant suspected that the appellant is the

person who has followed the case and got it mutated.

Therefore in collusion with the respondent police by

planting the complainant by creating a false story only to

invoke the provisions of SC/ST Act have lodged the

complaint against the petitioner. Therefore it is the clear

cut abut of process of law.

h) That there is no allegation against the appellant in the

complaint that they intentionally to humiliate a person

belonging to SC/ST has abused in a filthy language in a

public view and therefore the contents of the complaint

do not make out a prima facie case against the appellant

for the offence allege under the any of the provisions of

SC/ST Act. Therefore, the bar under Section 18(A) of the

said for grant of anticipatory bail does not attract.

Therefore, the sessions Court has erred in rejecting the

anticipatory bail application. Therefore, the same be set

aside and the appellant be enlarged on bail.

i) That there is no motive against the complainant or other

persons by the appellant/accused for abusing or

assaulting the complainant in insulting.

j) That contents of the complaint do not make out a prima

facie case against the appellant for any of the offence

alleged. Therefore the appellant is entitled for grant of

anticipatory bail.

k) That the appellant is a agriculturist and is a permanent

resident of Abbe Tumkur village, Tq & Dist: Yadgiri and

having moveable and immoveable properties threat.

Hence, the question of jumping over the bail does not

arise.

l) That the appellant is ready to furnish surety to the

satisfaction of this Court and also ready to abide by the

conditions if any, imposed."

7. Reiterating the above grounds, the learned

counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that it is

now settled law that Section 18 of the SC/ST (PA) Act

cannot be a absolute bar and the Court is required to find

out the intention of the accused in uttering the alleged

words and prima facie material should reveal that the

action attributable to the accused must be in the nature of

lower in the dignity of the persons who belongs to

Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe and then only the

bar would apply for entertaining the petition under Section

18 of the SC/ST (PA) Act and in every case, the bar under

Section 18 of the SC/ST (PA) Act would not come into

effect ipso facto and sought for grant of anticipatory bail.

8. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader contended that the contents of the complaint

would reveal a prima facie case that the accused/appellant

is guilty of the offences under the provisions of the SC/ST

(PA) Act and therefore Section 18 of the SC/ST (PA) Act

acts as a bar in this case to entertain the petition on

merits, which has been rightly appreciated by the learned

District Judge and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

9. This Court has carefully considered the

material on record. There is a complaint lodged by

Smt.Pavitra Patil about the intended action by the

complainant in this case, which was sent to the

Superintendent of Police on 29.09.2021.

10. The materials on record also reveal that there

are civil disputes in respect of the land of the complainant

and family of the accused/appellant. After the gift deed

executed in favour of Smt.Pavitra Patil in respect of land

bearing Sy.No.6/3 of Mudnal village, the revenue entries

have been mutated on 02.11.2021 and the present

complaint came to be filed on 04.11.2021. Taking note of

the above factual aspect, the learned counsel for the

appellant contended that the very fact that he complaint

came to be filed on 04.11.2021 after the mutation entries

have been made in favour of the accused/appellant by

order dated 02.11.2021, as a counter blast, a false

complaint came to be lodged against the

appellant/accused.

11. No doubt, the material on record depicts so.

However, there was no bar for the appellant/accused to

lodge a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate if the

police were not cooperating with him in registering the

case against the complainant herein.

12. A document is also filed along with appeal

papers, wherein, a message has been sent on 02.11.2021

by Smt.Pavitra Patil to Superintendent of Police through

Watsapp, which reads as under:

Sir, sorry to disturb. From past 3 to 4 days, regularly call was coming from Rural Police Station, Yadgir. So I have come t Yadgir and PSI has told that atrocity complaint has been received. I had sent my husband to give the statement. The persons who had hitted my father is following wherever we are going. I had gone to Rural Police Station for giving complaint but psi is not in station. Currently I am at your office, people here

told you have left for the day. Please see that justice is done."

13. This would make it clear that accused was

knowing that there was some ill-will between the accused

and the complainant. When such ill-will being nurtured, if

Smt.Pavitra Patil could send a Whatsapp message to the

Superintendent of Police, what prevented the accused to

file a complaint before the jurisdictional Magistrate is a

question that remains unanswered.

14. Be that as it may. It is not for this Court at

this stage to decide on the merits of the matter as the

same may prejudice the parties during the trial on one way

or the other.

15. Suffice to say that the material available on