Karnataka High Court
K P N Shenoy vs State Of Karnataka on 26 July, 2022
Bench: M.Nagaprasanna
-1-
CRL.P No. 1133 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF JULY, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1133 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
1. MR K.P.N. SHENOY
S/O K.P.V. RAO
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
OFFICER, CANARA BANK
SARAKKI LAYOUT BRANCH
BENGALURU - 560 070
RESIDING AT
11/6, 2ND CROSS, LIC COLONY
3RD BLOCK EAST, JAYANAGAR
BENGALURU - 560 011.
2. MR SESHADRI K.V.,
S/O VENKATARAMANA BHAT
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RESIDING AT: MP 9/5, BDA FLATS
B T M S F H S ROAD
BANNERGHATA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 076.
Digitally signed
by PADMAVATHI 3. MR. SWAMY S.L.N.,
BK
Location: HIGH S/O SADASHIVA AHOBALA
COURT OF AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
KARNATAKA RESIDING AT NO.2,
WEST AJAYANAYA TEMPLE STREET
BASAVANAGUDI
BENGALURU - 560 004.
4. MR. SUDHAKAR K. PAI
S/O N.KRISHNA PAI
AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS
-2-
CRL.P No. 1133 of 2021
RESIDING AT FF04,
MADKU D COMFORTS
4TH MAIN, FIRST D CROSS
MAHAVEER ROAD
AKSHYA NAGAR WEST
BENGALURU - 560 068.
5. MR. SELVARAJ
S/O M.P.GOPAL
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
CANARA BANK
REGIONAL OFFICE
NO.2/3, KAMARAJA STREET
TAMRAMPET WEST
CHENNAI 600 045
RESIDING AT: NO.1, KALIDOSS STREET
S I S I COLONY, ULLAGARAM
MADIPAKKAM, SAIDAPET
KANCHEEPURAM DISTRICT - 600 091
TAMIL NADU.
6. MR. R. GIREES KUMAR
S/O S.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS
GENERAL MANAGER,
CANARA BANK, HEAD OFFICE
NO. 112, J.C. ROAD,
BENGALURU 560 002
RESIDING AT: NO.316/A-5
NATIONAL GAMES VILLAGE
KORAMANGALA
BENGALURU - 560 034.
7. MR. SUNDARAM V.,
S/O S.VAIKUNTAM
AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS
RESIDING AT: A 114,
SKANDASRI PARADISE
ITI LAYOUT, NAYANDAHALLI
BENGALURU -560 039.
-3-
CRL.P No. 1133 of 2021
8. MR. RAVINDRA BHANDARY
S/O G.RAJEEV BHANDARY
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT NO.502, BLOCK 2
5TH FLOOR, KRISHNA APARTMENTS
NO.13, ALI ASKAR ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 001
ALSO AT: #13/7
ARIHANT FUTURA APARTMENT
FLAT 302, 3RD FLOOR
PAMPA MAHAKAVI ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 004.
9. MR. GIRI C.P.,
S/O LATE SRI SHYAMLAL GIRI
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
RESIDING AT 46, MAHARANI BAGH
PHASE 2, DEHRADUN 248 001
UTTARAKHAND
10. MR. SUDARSHAN JOSHI
S/O VASANTRAO JOSHI
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
CHIEF MANAGER ARM1 BRANCH
NO.86, SPENCER TOWER
M.G. ROAD, BENGALURU 560 001
RESIDING AT: FLAT NO.306
SKANDASHREE APARTMENTS
SAPTAGIRI LAYOUT
MUTTURAYA NAGAR
KENCHENAHALLI
BENGALURU - 560 059.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI SANDESH J.CHOUTA, SR.ADVOCATE A/W
SRI VIKRAM UNNI RAJAGOPAL, ADVOCATE)
-4-
CRL.P No. 1133 of 2021
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY
STATION HOUSE OFFICER
SIDDAPURA POLICE STATION
BENGALURU - 560 029.
2. CHANDRAKANT MUNAVALLI
S/O KASHAPPA
AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS
NO.200, OMKARA NAGARA
7TH CROSS, ARAKERE GARE
BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560 076.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI K.S.ABHIJITH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI M.S.MOHAN, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482
OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIR DATED
08.01.2021 IN CR.NO.11/2021 (ANNEXURE-A) REGISTERED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.1 POLICE AND IMPUGNED COMPLAINT
DATED 08.01.2021 (ANNEXURE-B) FILED BY RESPONDENT
NO.2 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-71) CITY CIVIL COURT, BENGALURU
AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 13.07.2022, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:-
-5-
CRL.P No. 1133 of 2021
ORDER
The petitioners are before this Court calling in question
proceedings in Crime No.11/2021 registered for offences
punishable under Sections 3(1)(p) and 3(1)(q) of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 ('the Act' for short).
2. Heard Sri Sandesh J.Chouta, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners, Sri K.S.Abhijith, learned High
Court Government Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and
Sri M.S.Mohan, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts in brief germane
are as follows:
The 2nd respondent is the complainant. The 2nd
respondent was an employee of Canara Bank. When he was
functioning as a Manager at the Town Hall Branch of the Bank,
he had indulged in certain irregularities, omissions and
commissions which led to the complainant being placed under
suspension with effect from 28-12-2013. Later, the
CRL.P No. 1133 of 2021
complainant was proceeded against departmentally by issuing a
charge sheet dated 28-05-2014 for alleged receipt of illegal
gratification from customers. A departmental inquiry was
conducted and the Inquiry Officer held the charges against the
petitioner as proved in terms of his report dated 16-09-2014.
The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings of the Inquiry
Officer and imposed upon the 2nd respondent penalty of
dismissal from service by his order dated 27-10-2014.
4. The complainant files appeal before the Appellate
Authority on 5-12-2014 and the Appellate Authority by
examining the matter modified the penalty by his order dated
20-05-2015 from dismissal to compulsory retirement. A review
petition was filed by the complainant, which came to be
dismissed in terms of the order dated 14-12-2015. Thereafter,
the complainant approaches the Karnataka State Commission
for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes at Bangalore ('the
Commission' for short) alleging that the Bank has committed an
atrocity against him by initiating departmental inquiry and
imposing on him compulsory retirement from service. He also
sought a direction before the Commission to initiate action
CRL.P No. 1133 of 2021
under the Act against the petitioners herein. The Commission in
terms of its order dated 02-01-2017 recommended that the
punishment imposed against the petitioner should be declared
as null and void and he should be reinstated into service
forthwith. This was challenged by the Bank before this Court in
Writ Petition No.2638 of 2017 and the aforesaid order of the
Commission was stayed being of the view that the Commission
had no power to set aside the orders passed by the competent
authorities. Thereafter, on 20-04-2017 the 2nd respondent filed
Writ Petition No.16950 of 2017 challenging the punishment
order passed by the Bank. Simultaneously, the complainant
again approached the Commission and the Commission again
issued notice to the Bank with regard to action taken and also
directed the Assistant Commissioner of Police to inquire into the
matter. This was again called in question by the Bank before
this Court in Writ Petition No.14952 of 2019 and this Court by
order dated 09-04-2019 directed that no coercive action should
be taken against officers of the Bank.
CRL.P No. 1133 of 2021
5. This Court disposed of Writ Petition No.2368 of 2017
by its order dated 11-07-2019 directing the Bank to look into
the suggestion or recommendation of the Commission before
passing any order or taking any decision with regard to the
service of the petitioner. By another order passed on the very
day i.e., 11.07.2019 in Writ Petition No.16950 of 2017 this
Court quashed the penalty orders passed by the Bank with a
direction to the Bank to take a fresh decision. In terms of the
directions issued by this Court on 11-07-2019, the Disciplinary
Authority in the Bank re-examined the matter and imposed on
the 2nd respondent punishment of reduction to a lower grade
i.e., from MMG-II to JMG-I. The complainant files an appeal
before the Appellate Authority against the said order and the
Appellate Authority further modifies the penalty of reduction in
time scale by 13 stages while retaining him in Middle
Management Grade Scale-II. With this penalty, the complainant
retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation.
6. After his retirement, the complainant registers a
complaint against the Bank and its officials, the petitioners
herein on 08-01-2021 alleging that the Bank by the aforesaid
CRL.P No. 1133 of 2021
acts has tortured the complainant which would become an
offence punishable under Section 3(1)(p) and 3(1)(q) of the
Act. The complaint becomes a crime in Crime No.11 of 2021 for
the said offences. On registration of the crime, the petitioners
are before this Court calling in question the very FIR registered
against them.
7. The learned senior counsel Sri Sandesh J.Chouta
appearing for the petitioners would vehemently contend that
the Bank taking a lenient view on the complainant in terms of
the order of this Court modified the penalty from compulsory
retirement to reversion from MMGS-II to JMGS-I. The Appellate
Authority further modified it to reduction in time scale by 13
stages in the cadre of MMGS-II. The complainant, on
reinstatement, retires from service, takes pension that
becomes available to him in terms of the penalty and then
registers the complaint against the officers of the Bank
notwithstanding the fact that they are in service or have retired
from service including Deputy General Manager and Chief
General Manager. It is his submission that FIR could not have
been registered in the teeth of the aforesaid facts. Above all,
- 10 -
CRL.P No. 1133 of 2021
the learned senior counsel would submit that pursuant to the
order modifying penalty by the Appellate Authority the
complainant is drawing pension and the same has not been
challenged before any judicial fora.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel representing
the 2nd respondent would vehemently refute the submissions to
contend that by repeatedly filing cases against the complainant,
petitioners have tortured the complainant and therefore, have
incurred the offence punishable as afore-mentioned under the
Act and would submit that this Court should not interfere at this
juncture and should permit further proceedings to go on
against the petitioners.
9. The learned High Court Government Pleader would toe
the lines of the 2nd respondent to contend that the offences
under the afore-quoted provisions of law have been prima facie
met and, therefore further proceedings be permitted to
continue.
- 11 -
CRL.P No. 1133 of 2021
10. I have given my anxious consideration to the
submissions made by the respective learned counsel and
perused the material on record.
11. The afore-quoted facts, link in the chain of events, its
dates are not in dispute and therefore, do not need any
reiteration. Crime registered against the petitioners who
are/were officers of the Bank, as most of them have retired
from service, is for offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(p)
and 3(1)(q) of the Act. Section 3(1)(p) and 3(1)(q) read as
follows:
"3. Punishments for offences of atrocities, - (1)
Whoever, not being a member of a Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe, -
... ... ... ...
(p) institutes false, malicious or vexatious suit or
criminal or other legal proceedings against a member of a
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe;
(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 Scheduled Tribe;"
- 12 -
CRL.P No. 1133 of 2021
Section 3(1)(p) of the Act directs that a false, malicious or
vexatious suit or criminal or legal proceedings if instituted
against a member of the Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe
would incur the offences under the Act. Section 3(1)(q) of the
Act directs that 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 the
Schedule Caste or Scheduled Tribe, would become vulnerable
for the aforesaid offences. In the teeth of ingredients of Section
3(1)(p) and 3(1)(q) if the facts obtaining as narrated
hereinabove are noticed, it would become unmistakably clear
that the complainant has resorted to arm twisting the
petitioners by invoking the provisions of the Act after having
accepted the order of penalty and receiving pension from the
Bank.
12. The fact that the complainant was dismissed from
service on account of acceptance of illegal gratification cannot
be brushed aside. The penalty of dismissal from service was
imposed against him by the Disciplinary Authority. This was
modified by the Appellate Authority to that of compulsory
- 13 -
CRL.P No. 1133 of 2021
retirement. The complainant while challenging the order passed
by the Appellate Authority approaches the Commission and the
Commission which had absolutely no jurisdiction to direct the
Bank to reinstate the complainant into service and give other
consequential directions does so. The said order was
challenged by the Bank before this Court in Writ Petition
No.2638 of 2017 and this Court on 11-07-2019 passed the
following order:
"2. This Court in Writ Petition No.47753 of 2017
decided on 2-07-2019 modified the direction issued by the
Karnataka State Scheduled Caste an Schedule Tribes
Commission by which treating the direction as only
suggestion/recommendation.
3. Petitioner is hereby directed to look into the
suggestion/recommendation of the Commission before
passing fresh order/taking decision. If decision is not already
taken, said exercise shall be completed within 2 months
from the date of receipt of this order.
4. In view of disposal of Writ Petition No.47753 of
2017 decided on 2-07-21019 and above observation, the
present petition stands disposed of.
The contesting respondent No.2 is at liberty to
approach the petitioner by filing additional reply or
representation within a period of four weeks from to-day."
- 14 -
CRL.P No. 1133 of 2021
On the same day, in the petition filed by the complainant in
W.P.No.16950 of 2017, noticing the earlier order quashing the
orders imposing penalty against the complainant directed fresh
decision to be taken within two months. The complainant later
gives a representation on 27-08-2019 to the Bank which reads
as follows:
"Sub: Declaration regarding no pendency of cases instituted
by me against the Bank.
Dear Sir,
I hereby submit this letter in furtherance to my letter dated
22-08-2019 vide which I desired to convey on being
reinstated into the services of the Bank with some
punishment. I state that on being reinstated into the
services of the Bank I will withdraw all cases/judicial
action/complaint instituted by me against the Bank and its
officers. As on date there is no case/complaint pending in
any court/police authorities which I have filed against the
Bank or its officers. However, in future if any cases/judicial
action/complaints are found to be not withdrawn by me the
same shall be withdrawn at the very same instance."
Accepting the representation and the order of this Court,
penalty of reversion from MMG-II to JMG-I was ordered on
09.09.2019. The complainant files an appeal thereto and the
Appellate Authority modifies the said order to that of reduction
in time scale by 13 stages for a period of one year and also to
- 15 -
CRL.P No. 1133 of 2021
have the effect of postponing future increments. Both these
orders as on date become final.
13. The complainant, after accepting the said orders,
retires from service on attaining the age of superannuation.
After retirement, the complainant registers the impugned
complaint for the aforesaid offences. The aforesaid facts and
the proceedings instituted against the petitioners by the
complainant would no where come within the ingredients of
Section 3(1)(p) and 3(1)(q) of the Act. It is the acts of the
complainant himself that led to his dismissal from service and
accepting the orders passed by this Court and subsequent
orders passed by the authorities the complainant was
reinstated into service. Those orders which permitted him to
work in the Bank and retire on attaining the age of
superannuation have not been questioned by the complainant
as on date. In accepting all the orders and monthly pension,
there cannot be any ingredients of Sections 3(1)(p) and 3(1)(q)
of the Act to allege offence. The Employer Bank has only
exercised its right under the Constitution by filing a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling into
- 16 -
CRL.P No. 1133 of 2021
question the orders passed by the Commission which were in
favour of the complainant. This cannot, by any means of
interpretation, become a false, malicious or vexatious suit
against the members (the Petitioner) belonging to the
scheduled caste and scheduled tribe or would not mean false or
frivolous information given to any public servant causing injury
or annoyance of a member of the scheduled caste and
scheduled tribe. The petitioner is the beneficiary of the order
passed by this Court, accepts the same, takes the benefits, and
then turns around and alleges offences punishable under the
Act. Therefore, no offence, under the act, is on the face of it,
made out.
14. Insofar as the judgments relied on by the learned
counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent in the case of
SATISH KUMAR JATAV V. STATE OF U.P - CRIMINAL
APPEAL NO.770 OF 2022, there can be no qualm about the
principles laid down therein. The facts obtaining in those cases
are distinguishable with the facts obtaining in the case at hand,
as the offences under the Act, in the teeth of the facts narrated
hereinabove, cannot be even prima facie made out.
- 17 -
CRL.P No. 1133 of 2021
15. The complainant could not have registered a
complaint post-retirement, that too against several retired
officers of the Bank. In the teeth of the aforesaid facts, if
further proceedings are permitted to continue, it would
undoubtedly degenerate into harassment and would become an
abuse of the process of law and result in grave miscarriage of
justice.
16. For the aforesaid reasons, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) Criminal Petition is allowed.
(ii) FIR in Crime No.11 of 2021 registered at the
Siddapura Police Station and pending before the
Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru is quashed.
In view of disposal of the petition, pending I.A.No.1/2021
also stands disposed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
BKP
