Karnataka High Court
Ramu S/O Krishna Doddamani vs The State Of Karnataka on 11 December, 2023
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488
CRL.P No. 104105 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 101177 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 104105 OF 2022
C/W
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 101177 OF 2022
IN CRL.P. NO. 104105 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
SHRI. RAJU S/O SHANKARRAO AMBORE,
AGE. 56 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O. SAI KRUPA MARATHA COLONY,
DHARWAD-580008.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHRIKANT T. PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
R/BY SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION,
DHARWAD, DIST. DHARWAD,
R/BY S.P.P. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
DHARWAD BENCH.
Digitally signed
by
VIJAYALAKSHMI VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI M KANKUPPI
Date: 2023.12.14
12:26:08 +0530
2. SHRI. RAGHAVENDRA
S/O DODDARAMAPPA DODDAMANI,
AGE. 37 YEARS, OCC. ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
PWD OFFICE, R/O. PWD OFFICE,
NEAR KCD CIRCLE, DHARWAD.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SURESH S. SHETTAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH FIR AND COMPLAINT REGISTERED BY SUB
URBAN POLICE STATION IN CRIME NO.28/2022 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 3(1)(r), 3(1)(S), 3(1)(p),
3(2)(5A) SCHEDULED CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBES
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT 2014 AND
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488
CRL.P No. 104105 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 101177 of 2022
SECTION 353, 304 OF IPC ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE DHARWAD AT DHARWAD IN SO
FAR AS ACCUSED NO.2 i.e., PETITIONER HEREIN IS CONCERNED IN
THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.
IN CRL.P. NO.101177 OF 2022:
BETWEEN:
RAMU S/O KRISHNA DODDAMANI,
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. PWD CONTRACTOR,
R/O. BIG HOUSE, OPP. KARIYAMMA TEMPLE,
SAIDAPUR, DHARWAD-580001.
... PETITIONER
(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
THROUGH SUB-URBAN DHARWAD POLICE STATION,
R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENCH
AT. DAHRWAD-580011.
2. RAGHVENDRA D. DODDAMANI,
AGE. MAJOR, OCC. ASSISTANT ENGINEER,
R/O. PWD SUB-DIV , NEAR AIR,
DHARWAD-580001.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. SURESH S. SHETTAMMANAVAR, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO QUASH THE FIR IN CRIME NO.28/2022 DATED
05.02.2022 REGISTERED BY SUB-URBAN DHARWAD P.S. PENDING
THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AND SPECIAL
JUDGE, DHARWAD, AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE U/S 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(p), 3(2)(5a) OF SCHEDULED
CASTE AND SCHEDULED TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT,
AND U/S 353 AND 504 OF IPC AND ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS
PURSUANT THERETO, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.
THESE PETITIONS COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS
DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488
CRL.P No. 104105 of 2022
C/W CRL.P No. 101177 of 2022
ORDER
The Criminal Petition No.104105/2022 is filed by
accused No.2 and Criminal Petition No.101177/2022 is
filed by accused No.1. Both the petitions are filed praying
to quash the FIR and complaint in Dharwad, Sub-Urban
Police Station Crime No.28/2022 registered for the
offences punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s),
3(1)(p), 3(2)(v-a) of The Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
(hereinafter referred as 'the Act' for brevity) and Sections
353 and 504 of Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred as
'IPC' for brevity).
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in
both the petitions, learned counsel for respondent No.2
and learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1-State.
3. Respondent No.2 filed complaint and the same
came to be registered in Dharwad Sub-Urban Police
Station Crime No.28/2022 for the aforesaid offences. In
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488
the FIR, petitioners have been arrayed as accused Nos.1
and 2. The petitioners have sought quashing of the
complaint and FIR in Crime No.28/2022 of Dharwad Sub-
Urban Police Station.
4. Learned counsel for accused No.2 (petitioner in
Crime No.104105/2022) would contend that there is no
allegation of any abuse to respondent No.2 touching his
caste to attract the offence under Section 3 of the Act.
Even there is no allegation of accused No.2 being present
on the date of incident i.e., 04.02.2022 at the spot.
Accused No.2 has been named in the complaint only on
the assumption that he and accused No.1 were involved in
sending a letter through post on 03.02.2022 making
allegations about working style of respondent No.2 to
Governor of Karnataka State. What is contained in the said
postal cover has not been stated in the complaint. He
contends that there are no materials against accused No.2
to attract the offences for which the case is registered.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488
With this, he prayed for quashing of the proceedings
against accused No.2.
5. Learned counsel for accused No.1 (Petitioner in
Criminal Petition No.101177/2022) would contend that
respondent No.2 only assuming that accused Nos.1 and 2
might have sent a cover containing some allegations
against him made in fictitious name namely Lokanath H.
Hindasageri and with an intention to take revenge against
them, has made a false allegation against this accused
No.1 of abuse by touching his caste that too after office
hours on 04.02.2022. Learned counsel for accused No.1
would contend that averments of complaint does not
contain that accused persons are not the members of
Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe and he intentionally
insulted or intimidated with an intent to humiliate in a
place within public view. He contends that even
respondent No.2 has not stated in the complaint that the
accused persons knew his caste prior to the date incident.
On that point, he placed reliance on the decisions of
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others1, Asmathunnisa
Vs state of Andhra Pradesh Represented by the
Public Prosecutor, High Court of Andhra Pradesh,
Hyderabad and Another2, Judgment of this Court in the
case of Deepak Mahadevappa Turamari and others Vs
State of Karnataka and Another3 and in the case of
Harish S/o H.Shanthana Gouda and others Vs The
State of Karnataka and Another4. The complaint filed
by respondent No.2 is abuse of process of law which is
filed with intent to take revenge against accused persons
assuming that they sent a letter to the Governor of
Karnataka making false allegations against him in the
fictitious name on the previous day of incident. With this,
he prayed to allow the petitions.
6. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 and
learned HCGP for respondent No.1-State would contend
(2008) 12 Supreme Court Cases 531
(2011) 11 Supreme Court Cases 259
Crl.P.No.100915/2019 & connected matter, decided on 16.08.2021.
Crl.P.No.103202/2022, decided on 29.11.2023
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488
that on perusal of the averments of complaint there is a
specific allegation against accused No.2 of abusing
respondent No.2 taking his caste name in the presence of
four persons present in the office of respondent No.2 at
about 6:55 p.m on 04.02.2022. The act of accused No.1
has caused hindrance in discharge of duties by respondent
No.2. The said aspect itself attracts the offences alleged
against accused No.1. They contended that even though
there is no specific allegation against accused No.2, but
the averments of complaint reveal that he along with
accused No.1 had sent a false complaint through post in
fictitious name against respondent No.2. They contended
that there are no grounds for quashing proceedings at this
stage. With this, they prayed to dismiss the petitions.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties,
this Court has perused the FIR, complaint, other
documents and the decisions relied upon by learned
counsel for the parties.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488
8. Respondent No.2 has filed first information on
05.02.2022 and it came to be registered in Crime
No.28/2022 of Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station for the
offences punishable under Sections 353, 504 of IPC and
Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(p), 3(2)(v-a) of the Act. The
petitioners are arrayed as accused Nos.1 and 2 in the FIR.
In the averments of the first information it is stated that
one Loknath H.Hindasageri, Secretary of Dharwad District
Contractors Association, Navanagar has made a complaint
against him regarding his working style and acquiring
properties worth crores. In the first information it is
further averred that the petitioners (accused Nos.1 and 2)
were found in the post office on 03.02.2022 at about
11:25 a.m, and it is recorded in the CCTV footage and it is
alleged that they might have been involved in sending a
complaint against him in the name of Loknath
H.Hindasageri. In the first information, it is also averred
that accused No.1 on 04.02.2022 at about 6:55 p.m, came
to his office and asked for favour to allot tender of
construction of judicial officers quarters at Kalaghatagi to
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488
him and he did not agree. At that time, he abused him
taking his caste name in filthy language in the presence of
five persons named in the first information. There is no
allegation of accused No.2 being present on 04.02.2022 at
the time of alleged incident and there is no allegation
against him of abusing him taking his caste name.
Therefore, on perusal of entire first information, there is
no case made out against accused No.2 (petitioner in
Crl.P.No.104105/2022). Therefore, complaint against
accused No.2 is an abuse of process of law.
9. The allegation of accused Nos.1 and 2 being
involved in sending a cover through post on 03.02.2022 at
11:25 A.M., and it is recorded in the CCTV footage. The
alleged complaint is filed on 05.02.2022 making
allegations regarding an incident on 04.02.2022 and
respondent No.2 is not aware of what is that postal cover
contained and to whom it is addressed. Therefore, the said
averments in the first information based on
assumption/presumption of respondent No.2. There is no
- 10 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488
mention in the averments of the first information that
accused Nos.1 and 2 are not the members of Scheduled
Caste or Scheduled Tribe and they were aware of caste of
respondent No.2.
10. On the basis of first information of respondent
No.2, a case came to be registered in Dharwad Sub-Urban
Police Station Crime No.28/2022 for the offences
punishable under Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(p),
3(2)(v-a) of the Act and other offences under IPC. In the
case of Gorige Pentaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesh
and Others (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph
No.6 it is held as under;
"The accused-appellant was not a member of the
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and he
(respondent No. 3) was intentionally insulted or
intimidated by the accused with intent to humiliate in
a place within public view. In the entire complaint,
nowhere it is mentioned that the accused-appellant
was not a member of the Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe and he intentionally insulted or
intimidated with intent to humiliate respondent No. 3
in a place within public view."
11. The aforesaid decision has been referred to in
the case of Asmathunnisa (supra). The basic ingredients
- 11 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488
of Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(1)(p), 3(2)(v-a) of the Act
is that the complainant ought to have alleged that the
petitioners were not the members of Scheduled Caste or a
Scheduled Tribe and they intentionally insulted or
intimidated with intent to humiliate in a place within public
view. In the entire first information, nowhere it is
mentioned that petitioners not the members of the
Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe and they
intentionally insulted or intimidated with intent to
humiliate respondent No.2 in a place within public view.
When the basic ingredients of the offence are missing in
the first information, then permitting such a complaint to
continue and to compel the petitioners to face the
rigmarole of the criminal trial would be totally unjustified
leading to abuse of process of law.
12. Relying the aforesaid decision in the case of the
Gorige Pentaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesha and
others5 and Asmathunnisa Vs State of Andhra
(2008) 12 SCC 531
- 12 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488
Pradesh6, this Court in the case of the Deepak
Mahadevappa Turamari and Others Vs State of
Karnataka and Others7, quashed proceedings for offence
punishable under Section 3(1)(r)(s) of the SC & ST Act. In
the case on hand, in the first information, nowhere it is
mentioned that petitioners were not members of the
Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe and they intentionally
insulted or intimidated by accused with intend to humiliate
respondent No.2 in a place within public view. When the
basic ingredients of the offences are missing in the first
information, then permitting such a complaint to continue
and to compel the petitioners to face rigmarole of the
criminal trial would be totally unjustified leading to abuse
of process of law. Therefore, the said first information is
an abuse of process of law, which comes under the
category No.7 of State of Harayana Vs Bhajan Lal and
others8 case. Therefore, the proceedings against these
(2011) 11 SCC 259.
Crl.P.No.100915/2019 connected with Crl.P.No.101243/2019
AIR 1992 SC 604
- 13 -
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14488
petitioners requires to be quashed. Accordingly, I pass the
following,
ORDER
The Criminal Petition Nos.104105/2022 and
101177/2022 are allowed. The FIR and complaint
registered in Crime No.28/2022 in Sub-Urban Police
Station Dharwad, are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
AM & DSP
CT:BCK
