K.S. Ravikumar vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 5148 Kant

                           1


     IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

        DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2023

                        BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. NATARAJAN

             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1016 OF 2022
                    CONNECTED WITH
             CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.962 OF 2022

IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1016 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

K.S. RAVIKUMAR
S/O SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
FLAT NO.404, B-8
KAILASH APARTMENTS
JNANABHARATHI ENCLAVE
MYSORE ROAD, KENGERI
BENGALURU - 560 059
                                              ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI K.S. RAVIKUMAR, PARTY IN PERSON)

AND:
1.    R. RAMAIAH
      S/O RAMAIAH
      AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
      FLAT NO.504, B-8
      KAILASH APARTMENTS
      JNANABHARATHI ENCLAVE
      MYSORE ROAD, KENGERI
      BENGALURU - 560 059
                             2


2.   M.P. NAGARAJ
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
     FLAT NO.403, B-7
     KAILASH APARTMENTS
     JNANABHARATHI ENCLAVE
     MYSORE ROAD, KENGERI
     BENGALURU - 560 059

3.   GANAPATI HEGDE
     AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
     FLAT NO.503, B-7
     KAILASH APARTMENTS
     JNANABHARATHI ENCLAVE
     MYSORE ROAD, KENGERI
     BENGALURU - 560 059
                                           ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI CHIDANANDA S. MATHAD, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14(A)(2) (POA) ACT BY THE PARTY-IN-PERSON PRAYING TO
ALLOW THE APPEAL, SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 22.04.2022
PASSED BY THE LXX ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE    AND    SPECIAL  JUDGE     AT    BENGALURU      IN
SPL.C.NO.1793/2021 (CR.NO.264/2018) FOR THE OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 504, 506, 153A, 323, 109, 341
AND 120B OF IPC AND SECTION 3(1)(r), (c)(g)(p)(q) OF SC/ST
(POA) ACT.

IN CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.962 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

K. S. RAVIKUMAR
S/O SIDDAPPA
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
FLAT NO.404, B-8
KAILASH APARTMENTS
JNANABHARATHI ENCLAVE
MYSORE ROAD, KENGERI
BENGALURU - 560 059                          ... APPELLANT
(BY SRI K.S. RAVIKUMAR, PARTY IN PERSON)
                              3


AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
    KENGERI POLICE STATION
    BENGALURU

   REPRESENTED BY SPP
   HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
   BANGALORE

2 . R RAMAIAH
    S/O RAMAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS

3 . SURESH RAMAIAH
    S/O R RAMAIAH

   R2 AND R3 ARE R/AT FLAT NO.504,
   B-8, KAILASH APARTMENTS
   MYSORE ROAD
   JNANABHARATHI ENCLAVE
   MYSORE ROAD, KENGERI
   BENGALURU - 560 059
                                          ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI S. VISHWA MURTHY, H.C.G.P. FOR R1
 SRI CHIDANANDA S. MATHAD, ADVOCATE FOR R2 AND R3)

      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION
14(A)(2) (POA) ACT BY THE PARTY-IN-PERSON PRAYING TO
ALLOW THIS APPEAL, CANCEL THE BAIL GRANTED TO THE
ACCUSED VIDE ORDER DATED 13.05.2022 PASSED BY THE LXX
ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL
JUDGE    AT   BENGALURU      IN    SPL.C.NO.1406/2021 IN
CR.NO.57/2021 REGISTERED BY KENGERI P.S., AGAINST THE
ACCUSED FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS
341, 504, 506 READ WITH SECTION 34 OF IPC AND UNDER
SECTION 3(1)(r),3(2)(va) OF SC/ST (POA) ACT.

     THESE CRIMINAL APPEALS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 11.7.2023 THIS DAY, THE
COURT PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
                               4



                    JUDGMENT

Criminal Appeal No.962/2022 is filed by the de-facto

complainant under section 14(A)(2) of Scheduled Castes

and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989,

(hereinafter referred to as 'Special Act') for setting aside

the order of granting anticipatory bail dated 13.05.2022

passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge

and Special Judge, Bengaluru, in Spl. Case No.1406/2021

arising out of crime NO.57/2021 registered by Kengeri

Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections

341, 504, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections

3(1)(r), 3(2)(va) of the Special Act.

2. Criminal Appeal No.1016/2022 is filed by the

same defacto complainant appellant under Section 14A(2)

of the Special Act for setting aside the order of granting

regular bail passed by the LXX Additional City Civil and

Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Bengaluru in Spl. Case

No.1793/2021 dated 22.04.2021 arising out of Crime

No.264/2018 registered by Kengeri police based upon the

private complaint filed by the appellant and got it referred

to the police for the offences punishable under Sections

341, 504, 506, 153A, 323, 109, 120-B read with Section

34 of IPC and Sections 3(1)(c)(g)(b)(q)(r) of the Special

Act.

3. Heard the appellant party-in-person and the

learned counsel for the respondents-accused.

4. The case of the appellant in respect of criminal

appeal No.962/2022 is that he has filed a complaint to the

Kengeri police on 15.2.2021 alleging that he is an

advocate by profession, he is residing in flat No.404 of B-

8, Kailash Apartment, Gnanabharathi Enclave, Mysore

Road, Kengeri, Bangalore. That on, 12.02.2021, at around

5.30 p.m., when himself and his wife were about to enter

the lift, one Suresh residing in flat No.504 abused the

appellant in filthy language, and other members of 308

flats used to call him as lunatic and abusing him. One

Ramaiah picked up an iron road and assaulted the

appellant and when he was recording the same through his

mobile phone, they restrained him from recording the

same. Ramaiah and family assaulted by abusing him in

caste name as 'Holeya' and 'Madiga'. They used to call

him as rascal and filed a false complaint against him.

Hence, he filed a complaint in PCR No.32/2018 which is

already referred to the police, who registered FIR in crime

No.264/2018 and further, on 29.06.2018, the complainant

filed a case against the Association before the Registrar of

Co-operative Societies and hence, one Ramanjaneyalu and

two others abused him in filthy language and threatened

him. It is further contended in the complaint that on

20.07.2019 at 8.30 p.m., when the appellant was waiting

for the lift, accused No.1 threatened the appellant to

withdraw the complaint and he refused the same.

Therefore, they assaulted and abused him in the filthy

language. They were always insulting him and abusing

him in filthy language. The said Ramaiah and his son

openly campaigned with all residents to boycott BDA action

of the parking slots within the apartment. The said

Ramanjaneyalu and Ramaiah had disconnected the

electricity supply by giving false information. The jeep

driver of Ramaiah and his son also shown criminal force on

him. The said Ramaiah warned the neighbouring residents

for troubling him. Till date, there is no FIR registered

against the accused persons on his complaint. Therefore,

he prayed for taking action. The police registered the case

and subsequently, the trial Court granted anticipatory bail

to the respondents on 05.05.2021. Against the said order

of grant of anticipatory bail, the appellant filed an

application for cancellation of bail in Spl Case

No.1406/2021 under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C., which

came to be rejected. Hence, he is before this court.

5. In respect of criminal appeal No.1016/2022, the

very same appellant filed this appeal for cancelling the

regular bail granted to the respondents under section 439

of Cr.P.C. wherein this appellant filed a private complaint

PCR No.32/2018 and got it referred to the police for

registering the FIR. The police after investigation, filed B-

final report and the same was challenged by the

complainant. Therefore, the Sessions Judge/Special Judge

directed the ACP to re-investigate the matter. Accordingly,

the police took up investigation and during investigation,

the respondents filed a petition under Section 439 of

Cr.P.C. and the bail has been granted by the Special Judge

on 22.04.2022, which is under challenge.

6. The appellant party in person has contended has

contended that he is an advocate by profession residing in

flat No.404 of Kailash Apartment, whereas the accused

persons residing in the upstairs and making non sense,

when he questioned, they abused him in the filthy

langauge, they threatened him and insulted him by taking

caste name, and by filing the complaint, they disconnected

the power connection and continuously troubling him.

Therefore, he filed various complaints against the

respondents and others in spite of the same, they are

continuously abusing him and committing the offence on

him which is punishable under the Special Act. Even

though, there is prohibition for granting anticipatory bail,

the trial Court granted anticipatory bail in favour of the

respondents which is not correct. The respondents have

violated the bail conditions and they are continuously

harassing the appellant. Even though he is an advocate,

they are harassing him, and threatening him to withdraw

the complaints by taking advantage of the bail. The

respondents again trespassed into the house of the

complainant at 11.30 p.m. and assaulted him and his wife,

and another case was registerred against the respondents.

Therefore, he prayed for cancellation of the bail by

allowing the appeals.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents

has contended that the appellant is not the owner of the

flat, his wife is the owner. There was a Welfare

Association, which used to collect the maintenance

charges, but the appellant and his wife are not at all

paying the maintenance charges towards security, lift,

electricity charges and there was total arrears of

Rs.2,50,000/- towards the maintenance. The said Ramaiah

as the Vice President when demanded for the maintenance

charges, the appellant used to file false complaint against

them and used to file private complaint and go it referred

to the police station. The respondents have not

committed any offences and violated any of the

conditions. Since various complaints were filed on the

same allegation by the appellant, the police filed B-final

report and later, further investigation was taken by the

higher officer. The trial Court considering the back ground

of the case, granted bail to the respondents which was

challenged by the appellant, there is no ground for

cancellation of bails, and hence, prayed for rejecting the

appeals.

8. Having heard the arguments of appellant party-

in-person and the learned counsel for the respondents,

perused the records.

9. The records reveal that the appellant's wife is

said to be the owner of a flat in the Kailash Apartment and

the respondents are the neighbours, by the side as well as

upstairs of the Apartment. The main contention of the

appellant is that the respondents are harassing him and

his wife and, verbally and physically abusing them by

taking his caste. They assaulted and caused injuries to the

appellant and on the complaint of the appellant, the

accused were arrested and were released with conditions.

In spite of the same, they are continuing to harass the

appellant and committing the similar offences, whereas the

main contention of the respondents is that the appellant is

not giving the maintenance charges and when they

requested for payment, the appellant file the false cases.

However, now the charge sheet has been filed in one case

and cognizance was taken by the trial Court. Out of the

two cases, regular bail was granted by the trial Court in

Spl. case No.1793/2021 and in another case, an

anticipatory bail was granted by the trial Court.

10. Of course, there is a bar under Sections 18 and

18A of the Special Act. The real dispute between the

parties are that the appellant is not making any payment

towards the usage of common amenities like lift charges,

electricity, security and cleaning charges. Though the

appellant has contended that he is not due, he has not

produced any documents to show that he was regularly

paying the maintenance charges. If at all there is any non

payment of the maintenance charges or whether the

appellant is paying the maintenance charges or not, is a

matter of civil dispute. However, based upon the dispute,

the appellant filed private complaints where the police filed

B-final report, and thereafter, the trial Court took

cognizance and subsequently, granted regular bail to the

respondents in the first case. In the second case, the

similar allegation was made by the appellant, where the

Sessions Judge granted anticipatory bail. It is well settled

by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PRATHVI

RAJ CHAUHAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

reported in (2020) 4 SCC 727 that when there is no

prima facie material placed on record, there is no bar for

granting anticipatory bail, on the other hand, if sufficient

material is placed on record to show that the offence was

committed under the Special Act, the Court cannot grant

anticipatory bail.

11. But, here, in this case, in one case, the regular

bail has been granted and in another case, anticipatory

bail has been granted. In a similar case, the appellant has

also filed an appeal for cancellation of bails, which came to

be dismissed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in

Criminal Appeal No.637/2021 decided on 31.08.2021. In

another case the High Court quashed the criminal

proceedings in Writ Petition No.13059/2019 and connected

matters in respect of the private complaints in Crime

No.82/2019, 68/2018 by imposing cost and the same was

challenged before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has also dismissed the SLP

(Criminal) diary No.40397/2022 dated 03.03.2023 by

imposing the further cost of Rs.30,000/-.

12. Considering all these facts, I am of the opinion

that the trial Court passed the considered order by

following the procedure and law, while granting the bail to

the respondents and thereafter, the application of the

appellant under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. was also

dismissed by the trial Court by detailed order which is

under challenge.

13. On considering the entire documents on record,

I am of the view that the trial Court has rightly granted the

regular bail and anticipatory bail and there is no perverse

order in order to cancel the bail granted to the

respondents and dismissing the application filed by the

appellant under Section 439(2) of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the

impugned orders do not call for interference by this Court

in these appeals.

14. Accordingly, both the appeals filed by the

appellant under Section 14(A)(2) of the Special Act, are

hereby dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE CS