Karnataka High Court
N. Navya vs State Of Karnataka on 13 June, 2022
Bench: Mohammad Nawaz
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF JUNE, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.872 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
N. NAVYA,
W/O. N.C. KRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT SRINIKETHANA,
10TH CROSS, SAPTHAGIRI EXTENSION,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MARATHA BUILDING,
SIDDAGANGA LAYOUT,
1ST CROSS, B.H. ROAD,
NEAR L.G. SHOWROOM,
TUMAKURU TOWN - 572 102. ... APPELLANT
[BY SMT. NEERAJA KARANTH, ADVOCATE]
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY JAYANAGARA POLICE,
TUMAKURU TOWN,
REP. BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT BUILDING,
BENGALURU - 560 001.
2. BHAGYAMMA,
W/O. LAKSHMAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
RESIDING AT UPPARAHALLI,
TUMAKURU TOWN - 572 102. ... RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI. K.K. KRISHNA KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1.
R2 IS SERVED]
***
2
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 14A(2)
OF THE SC & SC (POA) ACT, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 30.04.2022 PASSED IN CRL.MISC.PET. NO.529/2022 IN
SPL.CASE. NO.49/2020 (CRIME NO.46/2016 OF JAYANAGAR P.S.,
TUMAKURU & PCR NO.4/2016) ON THE FILE OF III ADDL. DISTRICT
& SESSIONS JUDGE, TAMAKURU AND TO GRANT ANTICIPATORY
BAIL TO THE APPELLANT HEREIN/ACCUSED, FOR OFFENCES P/U/S
406, 323, 504, 506 OF IPC AND SECTIONS 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) AND
3(2)(Va) OF THE SC & ST (POA) ACT.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL COMING ON FOR ADMISSION,
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE/PHYSICAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The appellant is before the Court in this appeal filed
under Section 14A(2) of the Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989
[hereinafter referred to as 'SC and ST (POA) Act' for short],
praying to set aside the Order dated 30.04.2022 passed in
Criminal Misc. Pet. No.529/2022 in Special Case
No.49/2020, pending on the file of the learned III
Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru and
consequently, to release the appellant on anticipatory bail
in connection with a case registered in Crime No.46/2016
of Jayanagar Police Station, Tumakuru.
2. Heard the learned counsel for appellant and the
learned HCGP for respondent/State. Respondent No.2 has
been served, but there is no representation.
3. The complainant filed PCR No.4/2016 on the file
of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tumakuru,
against the appellant herein for offence punishable under
Sections 406, 323, 504 and 506 of IPC and under Section
3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(Va) of the SC and ST [POA] Act. The
said complaint was referred to Police for investigation and a
'B-Report' was filed. The complainant challenged the said
'B-Report', by way of protest petition.
4. The learned Sessions Judge after taking
cognizance of the offence under Sections 406, 323, 504
and 506 of IPC and under Section 3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(Va)
of the SC and ST [POA] Act registered a case.
Apprehending arrest, appellant herein filed a petition under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The said petition came to be
rejected by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge,
Tumakuru vide Order dated 30.04.2022. Hence, this
appeal.
5. Brief facts are that, the complainant is the
owner of the house property bearing khata
No.495/1/894/1770 situated at Ward No.23 of Upparahalli,
Tumakuru, which was purchased by her from one
Naseerabi, w/o. Mohammed Dastagir. She constructed a
house in the said site and as she was in need of money,
approached the accused for a loan of `2 lakhs. The
accused agreed to lend the said amount with interest at the
rate of 3% p.m. and demanded security of the property in
question, which was not agreed by the complainant.
Thereafter, the accused asked the complainant to execute
a registered agreement in respect of the said site and on
20.09.2013, the accused brought the complainant to the
Office of the Sub-Registrar, Tumakuru and obtained the
documents registered in her favour falsely stating that it
was only an agreement. The complainant told the accused
that the house which is the subject matter of the
agreement has been leased in favour of one Shivamma for
`1,80,000/- and the said amount was also to be paid by
the complainant. On the same day, the accused executed
an unregistered agreement by way of consent agreement
stating that the complainant has to repay the entire
amount within 4 years with interest at the rate of 3% p.m.
Accordingly, the accused accepted to receive the said
amount along with interest and further accepted to cancel
the agreement by way of reconveyance of the house in
favour of the complainant. It was stated that within 4
years if the schedule property is not taken back by paying
the said amount, the complainant has no right to demand
for return of conveyance deed in her favour from the
accused.
6. It is alleged that the complainant was under the
impression that the documents executed before the Sub-
Registrar was only an agreement. But subsequently, she
came to know that the said document was not an
agreement, but it was a sale deed. Immediately, she
approached the accused on 02.05.2016, at 4.30 p.m. in his
house where the accused abused her using filthy words
insulting her caste and also threatened with dire
consequences.
7. On a careful perusal of the entire complaint
averments, it is noticed that there is a civil dispute
between the parties. Initially, the complaint was referred to
Police for investigation and after conducting investigation,
'B-Report' was filed wherein it is stated that no such
incident has taken place on 02.05.2016 at 4.30 p.m. and in
fact, on the relevant date and time, the complainant did
not go to the place of the accused.
8. It is also brought to the notice of the Court by
the learned counsel for the appellant that though the trial
Court registered a case, did not issue summons to the
accused. On the other hand, NBW was issued on the
ground that the accused was absent and therefore, the
impugned order is not sustainable in law. She contends
that even accepting the allegations, the alleged offence has
not taken place within public view as it is specifically
averred in the complaint that the accused abused the
complainant in her house.
9. The learned High Court Government Pleader
contends that the appellant/accused has committed the
offence punishable under the SC and ST [POA] Act, and in
view of prima facie allegations, the learned Sessions Judge
has rightly rejected the prayer seeking anticipatory bail and
therefore prays to reject the appeal.
10. As already noted supra, the Police after
investigation filed a 'B-Report' stating that no such incident
has taken place on 02.05.2016 at 4.30 p.m. as alleged by
the complainant. From the material on record, it is seen
that there is a civil dispute between the complainant and
the accused. The complainant has not alleged in the
complaint that only on the ground that the complainant
belongs to Scheduled Caste, the offence was committed.
11. In the decision reported in (2020)10
Supreme Court Cases 710 [Hitesh Verma Vs. State of
Uttarakhand and Another] it is held that 'the offence
under the Act is not established merely on the fact that the
informant is a member of Scheduled Caste unless there is
an intention to humiliate a member of Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe for the reason that the victim belongs to
such caste'. It is not so in the present case. Hence,
considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case,
it cannot be said at this stage that there is a prima facie
case made out against the appellant attracting the
provisions of the SC and ST [POA] Act.
12. The appellant is a woman. She has undertaken
to abide by conditions and to regularly appear before the
jurisdictional Court. Hence, the following:
ORDER
Appeal is allowed. The Order dated 30.04.2022
passed by the learned III Additional District and Sessions
Judge at Tumakuru in Crl. Misc. Pet. No.529/2022 is set
aside.
The appellant/accused shall be released on bail in the
event of her arrest in Crl. Misc. Pet. No.529/2022 [Spl.
Case No.49/2020] pending on the file of the Court of III
Additional District and Sessions Judge at Tumakuru [Crime
No.46/2016 of Jayanagara Police Station, Tumakuru],
subject to following conditions:
(1) Appellant shall appear before the
jurisdictional Court within a period of
15 [Fifteen] days from today.
(2) She shall execute a personal bond in a
sum of `50,000/- [Rupees Fifty
Thousand only] with a likesum surety
to the satisfaction of the jurisdictional
Court.
(3) She shall furnish proof of her
residential address and shall inform the
Court, if there is change in the address.
(4) She shall not tamper with the
prosecution witnesses in any manner.
(5) She shall appear regularly in the
pending Court proceedings.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Ksm*
