Anndaneshwar S/O Irappa Kori vs The State Of Karnataka
2022 Latest Caselaw 13099 Kant

                             -1-




                                      CRL.A No. 100505 of 2022




     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                           BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100505 OF 2022 (U/S 14 A(2) of SC
                        and ST ACT-)

BETWEEN:


1.    ANNDANESHWAR S/O IRAPPA KORI
      AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

2.    GEETA ANNADANESHWAR KORI
      AGE: 45 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

3.    SANGAPPA S/O DEVAPPA KUDAGUDARI
      AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE

4.    SAVITRI KUDAGUDARI
      AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD

      ALL ARE R/O RAJUR VILLAGE
      TQ. GAJENDRAGAD, DIST. GADAG 582114



                                                  ...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SANTOSH B. MALAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:


1.    THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
      THROUGH PSI, GAJENDRAGAD POLICE STATION
      REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDL. STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
      SPP OFFICE, HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
      DHARWAD-580011

2.    SMT. NAGARATNA W/O YALLAPPA JAMAKHANDI
      AGE: 47 YEARS, OCC: ARTIST
                               -2-




                                      CRL.A No. 100505 of 2022

    R/O RAJUR, NOW AT HANSANOOR
    TQ. GULEDGUDDA, DIST. BAGALKOT 587203


                                                ...RESPONDENTS
(SRI. PRASHANTH V. MOGALI, HCGP FOR R1;
R2 SERVED)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/S 14 A(2) OF SC AND ST
(POA) ACT 1989, R/W 438 OF CR.P.C., SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 14.10.2022 PASSED BY THE COURT OF THE
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, AT GADAG IN
CRL.MISC.NO.345/2022, AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE PRESENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL BY ENLARGING THE APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1
TO 4 ON ANTICIPATORY BAIL ON SUCH TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS
DEEMED FIT IN GAJENDRAGAD PS CRIME NO.120/2022 REGISTERED
FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE U/S 323, 354, 504, 506, R/W
SECTION 34 OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) OF THE
SCHEDULED CASTES AND THE SCHEDULED TRIBES (PREVENTION OF
ATROCITIES)    ACT,   1989,   IN    SO    FAR     AS    PRESENT
APPELLANTS/ACCUSED NO.1 TO 4 ARE CONCERNED.
    THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                         JUDGMENT

challenging the order dated 14.10.2022 passed in Criminal

Misc. No.345/2022 by the Additional District and Sessions

Judge, Gadag, whereunder, an anticipatory bail petition

filed by the appellants in respect of Gajendragad police

station Crime No.128/2022 registered for the offences

punishable under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 read with

CRL.A No. 100505 of 2022

Section 34 of IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a)

of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989, came to be registered.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants

and the learned HCGP for the respondent-State.

3. Respondent No.2 was physically present before

the Court on the previous date of hearing and prayed not

to grant anticipatory bail to the appellants and submitted

that, they will repeat the offence and there is a threat to

her life, if anticipatory bail is granted to them.

4. The case of the prosecution is that, the

respondent No.2 has filed complaint stating that, she

belongs to Channadasara caste and accused belongs to

Hindu Banajiga caste. It is further stated that, she is

married to accused No.3 in the year 1996 in the presence

of elders and her parents. It is further stated that, on

13.03.2001 one Shri. Shivangouda S/o. Sangangouda

Myagalmani of Rajur village has gifted her plot measuring

30X40 feet situated in Survey No.206/4 and she got

mutated her name to the said site in the record of rights of

CRL.A No. 100505 of 2022

Rajur village panchayat. It is further stated that, she got

constructed a house in the said plot under Ambedkar

Vasati Yojana in the year 2001/2022 and she was residing

along with her husband and children in the said house. It

is further stated that, due to mutual difference with her

husband, she went to her parental house along with her

children and she is residing there since 2013. It is further

stated that, during the year 2018, when she came to Rajur

village to get the property extract of her property, she

came to know that, the name of Sangappa S/o. Devappa

Kudagudari came to be entered in the property register

and she filed her objections for the entry of the said name

and the PDO, Gram Panchayat has not taken any action

and subsequently due to her ill-health, she did not visit

Rajur village. It is stated that, on 06.08.2022 when she

came to Rajur village, she came to know that accused

No.1 by demolishing her house was constructing the house

and when she enquired, he told to ask accused No.3. It is

further stated that, on 16.09.2022, at about 5.00 p.m.,

she came to Rajur village and went near her house and at

CRL.A No. 100505 of 2022

that time, accused No.1 had constructed the house in that

place and he was constructing compound wall and she told

accused No.1 not to construct the compound wall, at that

time accused No.1 told her not to come there and she

belongs to lower caste of Channadasara caste and so

saying, he held her hand and pulled her and she fell on the

ground. Thereafter, the wife of the accused No.1 i.e. Geeta

(accused No.2) also held her hand, pulled her and abused

her in filthy language touching her caste and assaulted her

not to come inside the house and abused her in filthy

language. At that time, accused No.3 and accused No.4

both came and told that, that is not her house and asked

her to go and in spite of telling her not to come, she has

again came there and abused her in filthy language

touching their caste and gave her life threat and told that

he has forged her signature and got transferred the

property in his name and accused Nos.3 and 4 have

assaulted on her back with hands and at that time, her

son Tyagaraj and another Hanamanth Hittalmani, resident

of Rajur came and pacified the quarrel and she took

CRL.A No. 100505 of 2022

treatment in Gajendragad Government Hospital and

thereafter filed the complaint. The said complaint came to

be registered in Gajendragad police station Crime

No.120/2022 for the offences punishable under Sections

323, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and

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

1989. The appellants/accused Nos.1 to 4 apprehending

their arrest filed Criminal Misc. No.345/2022 seeking

anticipatory bail and the same came to be rejected by the

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gadag, by order

dated 14.10.2022. The appellants have challenged the

said order in the instant appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants would

contend that, the complainant came to know about the

transfer of the property in the name of the accused No.3

in the year 2018, and she kept quite for four long years. It

is his further submission that, the accusations made in the

averments of the complaint does not attract the offence

under Section 3 of SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. The accused

No.1 has purchased the property from accused No.3 and is

CRL.A No. 100505 of 2022

absolute owner and he has constructed the house. It is his

further submission that, in respect of a property dispute,

the complainant has filed a false complaint. It is his further

submission that, there is no prima-facie case to attract

Section 3 of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. Therefore, in view

of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the

Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs Union Of India reported in

SCC 2020 (4) 727, the bar under Section 18 of the

SC/ST (POA) Act is not attracted when there is no prima-

facie case to attract Section 3 of the SC/ST (POA) Act,

1989. It is his further submission that, the alleged incident

has not been witnessed by any other third person to

attract the offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-

a) of SC/ST (POA) Act. Without considering all these

aspects, the learned Sessions Judge has passed the

impugned order which requires interference by this Court.

With this, he prayed to allow the appeal.

6. Per contra, learned HCGP would contend that,

the investigation is in progress. The Investigating Officer

has drawn the spot mahazar and recorded the statement

CRL.A No. 100505 of 2022

of witnesses. The Investigating Officer has collected the

wound certificate and the injury noted in the wound

certificate corroborates the overt acts alleged against the

appellants/accused. On looking to the entire averments of

the complaint, there is a prima-facie case for attracting

the offence under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of

SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. It is his further submission that,

the alleged incident has taken place in the public view and

it has been witnessed by the son of this complainant and

another Hanumanth Hittalmani, who is resident of Rajur. It

is his further submission that, there is prima-facie case,

the bar under Section 18 of the SC/ST (POA) Act is

attracted. Considering all these aspects, the learned

Sessions Judge has rightly passed the impugned order

which does not call for any interference by this Court. With

this, he prayed to dismiss the appeal.

7. Having regard to the submission made by the

learned counsel for the appellants and the learned HCGP,

this Court has gone through the averments of the

CRL.A No. 100505 of 2022

complaint, FIR, impugned order and other investigation

papers facilitated by the learned HCGP.

8. The offences alleged against the appellants are

under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of

IPC and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of SC/ST

(POA) Act, 1989. The appellants apprehending their arrest

have sought grant of anticipatory bail and the same came

to be rejected on the ground that, there is a bar under

Section 18 and 18A of the SC/ST (POA) Act, 1989. As per

the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Prathvi Raj Chauhan (supra), if there is no prima-facie

case made out, the bar under Section 18 and 18A is not

attracted and the Court can entertain a petition under

Section 438 of Cr.P.C. The respondent No.2 complainant

alleges that, accused No.3 is her husband and site

measuring 30X40 feet formed in Survey No.206/4 of Rajur

village was standing in her name and accused No.3 has

got transferred the said property in his name and she has

filed objections before the PDO, Gram Panchayat, Rajur

and he has not taken any action. Due to her ill-health she

- 10 -

CRL.A No. 100505 of 2022

could not pursue the said aspect for a period of four years.

It is stated in the complaint that, on 06.08.2022 she came

to Rajur village and at that time, accused No.1 was

constructing the house and when she enquired with him,

he told to ask accused No.3. It is further stated, in the

complaint, that on 16.09.2022 she came to Rajur village

at about 5.00 p.m. and saw that this accused No.1 was

constructing the compound wall and she asked him not to

construct the compound wall, at that time accused No.1

told that the house belongs to him and asked her not to

come to his house as she belongs to lower caste woman of

Channadasara caste and he held her hand, pulled her and

she fell on the ground and thereafter, accused Nos.1's wife

i.e. accused No.2 Geeta held her hand, pulled and abused

her in filthy language touching her caste and asked her not

to come inside the house and abused in filthy language. At

that time, the accused No.3 and accused No.4 came there

and told her that, the house is not hers and asked her to

go, and abused her stating that, she belongs to lower

caste of Channadasara caste and abused her in filthy

- 11 -

CRL.A No. 100505 of 2022

language by giving her life threat and accused Nos.3 and 4

assaulted her with hands on her back and at that time, her

son Tyagaraj and another Hanamanth Hittalmani, resident

of Rajur village came there and pacified the quarrel and

she went to Gajendragad Government Hospital and took

treatment and filed complaint. On looking to the said

entire averments of the complaint there is a specific

allegation against each of the appellants/accused Nos.1 to

4 that they abused the complainant touching her caste in

the place of public view. At that time, the son of this

complainant Tyagaraj and another Hanamanth Hittalmani,

resident of Rajur were present. The contention of the

learned counsel for the appellants that the alleged incident

is not in the public view and nobody has witnessed the

incident cannot be accepted, since the presence of one Mr.

Hanamanth Hittalmani, resident of Rajur is mentioned in

the complaint, as he was present at the time of the

incident. Therefore, considering all the averments of the

complaint, there is a prima-facie case against the

appellants for the offences alleged under Section 3 of

- 12 -

CRL.A No. 100505 of 2022

SC/ST (POA) Act, and bar under Section 18 is attracted.

Considering all these aspects, the learned Sessions Judge

has rightly passed the impugned order which does not call

for any interference by this Court. The appellants have not

made out any grounds for setting aside the impugned

order. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

SVH