Husenappa S/O Margeppa Sindnur vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 11115 Kant

                            1




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                    DHARWAD BENCH

          DATED THIS THE 26 T H DAY OF JULY 2022
                         BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

          CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.100205 OF 2022

   BETWEEN:

   HUSENAPPA S/O. MARGEPPA SINDN UR
   AGE: 36 YEAR, OCCUPATI ON: COOLI E,
   R/O. GIRANI CHA WL, HUBBALLI ,
   DIST. DHARWAD - 580007.
                                          ...A PPELLANT
   (BY SRI. SATISH S . RAI CHUR, ADVOCATE)


   AND:

   1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
        REPRES ENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUT OR
        HIGH COURT OF K ARNATAKA,
        DHARWAD BEN CH,
        DHARWAD.
        THROUGH HUBBA LLI SUB P.S .,
        DIST. DHARWAD - 580007.


   2.   MAHESH S/O. NARAYANDAS DARBAR
        AGE: 54 YEARS , OCC: BUSINESS ,
        R/O. STATION ROAD, BA GALK OT,
        DIST. BA GALKOT - 587101.


   3.   AMBRESH S/O. BHAGVANDAS PUNEK AR
        AGE: 60 YEARS , OCC: BUSINESS ,
        R/O. NO.001, VAS ANT RESIDENCY ,
                                 2




        SHANTI COLONY, HUBBALLI,
        DIST. DHARWAD - 580030.
                                                 ... RES PONDENTS

(BY SRI. PRAS HAN TH V. MOGA LI, HCGP FOR R1;
 SRI. RAJASHEKAR R. GUNJALLI , ADV . F OR R2 AND 3)



        THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14A(2) OF
SC AND ST ACT, 2015, SEEKING T O SET ASIDE THE
ORDER      PASSED    IN   CRL.MISC.        N O.158/2022     DATED
04.04.2022 A LLOWING THE PETITION FILED UND ER
SECTION 438 OF CR.P.C. IN HUBBALLI , SUB-URBA N
P.S .     CRIME     NO.33/ 2022       FOR        THE   OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323 AND 506 REA D
WITH      SECTION    34   OF   I PC   AND    UNDER     SECTI ONS
3(1)( r), 3( 1)(s) A ND 3(2)( v-a) OF SC AND ST ( POA)
ACT,       1989     A MENDMENT             ACT      2015,    AND
CONSEQUENTLY ,        DISRECT         TO    THE     ARREST    T HE
RESPOND ENT NOS .2 AND 3 IN HUBBALLI , SUB URBA N
P.S .     CRIME     NO.33/ 2022       FOR        THE   OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 323 AND 506 REA D
WITH      SECTION    34   OF   I PC   AND    UNDER     SECTI ONS
3(1)( r), 3( 1)(s) A ND 3(2)( v-a) OF SC AND ST ( POA)
ACT, 1989 AMEND MENT ACT 2015.


        THIS CRIMINAL A PPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS
THIS DAY, T HE COURT DELIVERED THE F OLLOWING:
                                   3




                         JUDGMENT

     This    appeal         has        been     filed       by      the

complainant       challenging            the        order        dated

04.04.2022 passed in Criminal Miscellaneous

No.158/2022 by the II Additional District and

Sessions and Special Judge, Dharwad,

whereunder respondent Nos.2 and 3/accused

Nos.1 and 2 have been granted anticipatory

bail in Crime No.33/2022 of Hubballi Sub-urban

Police Station registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 506 read with

Section 34 of The Indian Penal Code

(hereinafter referred to as the 'IPC', for

brevity) and Section 3(a)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va)

of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter

referred to as the 'SC & ST (P.O.A.) Act' for

brevity).

2. Heard learned counsel Shri Satish

R.Raichur, for the appellant and learned

counsel Shri Rajashekar R.Gunjalli, for

and Shri Prashant V.Mogali, learned HCGP for

respondent No.1-State.

3. Brief facts leading to filing of this

present appeal is that, appellant/complainant

filed complaint against respondent Nos.2 and 3

on 14.03.2022, which came to be registered in

Crime No.33/2022 of Hubballi Sub-urban Police

Station for the offences punishable under

Sections 506 and 323 R/w Section 34 of IPC

and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(va) of the

SC & ST (P.O.A.) Act. In the complaint it is

stated that on 12.1.2022 at about 10:00 a.m

the complainant i.e, appellant was putting

intermittent board in the property bearing CTS

No.146A, Ward No.3 of Neelijan road Hubballi.

At that time, respondent Nos.2 and 3/accused

Nos.1 and 2 have abused the complainant in

filthy words by taking his caste as 'Holeya Sule

makkala' and they have assaulted with hands

and gave life threat to him. Respondent Nos.2

and 3/accused Nos.1 and 2 apprehending their

arrest have filed Crl.Misc.No.158/2022 seeking

an anticipatory bail. Learned II Addl. District

and Sessions & Special Judge, Dharwad by his

order dated 04.04.2022 has granted

anticipatory bail to the respondent Nos.2 and

3/accused Nos.1 and 2. Prior to passing of the

said order, notice has been issued to the

complainant and he appeared through counsel

and filed statement of objections supported by

affidavit. The Special Court has taken into

consideration the said objection filed by the

appellant/complainant while passing the

impugned order. The complainant aggrieved by

the said impugned order has preferred this

appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the

appellant/complainant would contend that the

impugned order is illegal, capricious and

perverse. The contents of the complaint

constitutes the necessary ingredients for the

offences under Sections 3(1) (r), 3(1) (s) of

the SC & ST (P.O.A.) Act. The Special Court

failed to consider the judicial pronouncements

of the Apex Court. The contents that the

complainant earlier had sent complaint to

Assistant Commissioner of Police through a

registered post and therefore, there is a delay

in filing the FIR and only on the ground of

delay the Special Court has granted bail to

respondent Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.1 and 2.

It is further submitted that there is threat of

life to the appellant/complainant by respondent

Nos.2 and 3/acused Nos.1 and 2. With these,

he prayed for setting aside the impugned order

and rejecting the petition filed by respondent

Nos.1 and 2 seeking anticipatory bail.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for

respondent Nos.2 and 3 would submit that the

Special Court has taken into consideration the

delay in filing the complaint, the Civil litigation

and presence of one of the accused on the spot

on the date of offence as doubtful has passed

the impugned order. It is his further

submission that the Special Court has taken

into consideration the decision of the Apex

Court had exercised his discretion and granted

anticipatory bail with conditions. It is his

further submission that there are no

allegations on respondent Nos.2 and 3 of

violating any of the conditions imposed by the

Special Court. With these, he prays to dismiss

the appeal.

6. Learned HCGP has reiterated the

contentions raised by the counsel for the

appellant and he placed reliance on the

decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs Union Of India

reported in SCC 2020 (4) 727.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for

the parties and on perusal of the impugned

order, the following point arises for

consideration;

"Whether the impugned order passed by the Special Court require interference by this Court? "

8. The answer to the said point is in the

negative for the following;

REASONS

9. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Prathvi Raj Chauhan (Supra) has held that if

the complaint does not make out a prima-facie

case for applicability of the provisions of the

SC & ST (P.O.A.) Act, then bar created under

Section 18 and 18A shall not apply. The Special

Court has referred to the said decision in the

impugned order. The allegation in the

complaint dated 14.3.2022 filed by the

appellant-complainant is that, respondent

Nos.2 and 3/accused Nos.1 and 2 have abused

the appellant-complainant in filthy languages

by touching his caste and assaulted him and

gave life threat. The said incident, as per his

averments of the said complaint is taken place

on 12.1.2022. The complaint is dated

14.3.2022 and case came to be registered on

the basis of the said complaint on 14.3.2022.

There is a delay of two months in filing the

said complaint and there are no averments in

complaint explaining the said delay. The

appellant-complainant, who has been notified

and who appeared and filed objections before

the Special Court opposing the anticipatory bail

plea of the 2 n d and 3 r d respondent/accused

Nos.1 and 2 has not stated any reason for

filing complaint belatedly. The learned counsel

for the appellant placing reliance on the

document produced along with this appeal i.e.,

photocopy of postal receipt and photocopy of

letter addressed to the ACP, northern Hubballi

contended that the appellant had sent the said

letter to the Commissioner of Police and

Assistant Commissioner of Police Hubballi.

Therefore, there is no delay in filing the

complaint. As the said aspect has not been

putforth by the appellant before the Special

Court, the same cannot be taken into

consideration in this appeal. The appellant who

intended to put a notice Board in their property

bearing CTS No.146 is the subject matter in

O.S.No.356/2021 between Shri Chalavadi

Channaveerappa and Smt. Madhukanta and

Another. The appellant stated to have gone to

the said property on the instruction of said

Chalavadi Channaveerappa. Respondent No.3-

accused No.2 is a P.A.holder of

Smt. Madhukanta and another, who are his

relatives and defendants in O.S.No.356/2021.

Learned Special Judge has taken into

consideration the said aspect of pendency of

Civil Suit to consider the prima-facie case

against the accused. The Special Court also

taken into consideration some medical records

produced by the accused wherein, respondent

No.2/accused No.1 was in Bagalkot as on the

date of alleged incident i.e., 12.1.2022 to

consider the prima-facie case against the

accused. The Special Court has elaborately

discussed the said aspect in para No.10 of the

impugned order. The Special Court has also

taken into consideration the law laid down by

the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prathvi

Raj Chauhan (Supra) and other decisions

cited by the parties. I do not find any illegality

or perversity in the impugned order. There are

no grounds made out for interfering with

impugned order.

10. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

SD/-

JUDGE

S MM - Pa ra 0 1 .

A M - Pa r a 0 2 t o t i ll en d .