Karnataka High Court

Dr. Raghavendra B. Nayak vs State Of Karnataka on 20 December, 2023

Author: M. Nagaprasanna

Bench: M. Nagaprasanna

                           1



  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

        DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023        R
                          BEFORE

         THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.103145 OF 2022

                           C/W

           CRIMINAL PETITION No.103100 OF 2022

IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.103145 OF 2022


BETWEEN:

DR. RAGHAVENDRA B. NAYAK
S/O BHEEMAPPA NAYAK
AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS
OCC.: ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHIATRY
DIMHANS, DHARWAD
R/O.H.NO.1 GROUP A DIMHANS STAFF
QUARTERS, OPPOSITE TO GERMAN HOSPITAL
NARAYANPUR
DHARWAD - 580 008.
                                            ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI SUNIL S. DESAI REPRESENTED BY
    SRI KUSHAL N. KAMBLE, ADVOCATES)

AND:

1.   STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
     SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION
     DHARWAD
     REPRESENTED BY
                                  2




     THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
     HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
     DHARWAD - 580 008.

2.   DR. RAMESH BABU
     S/O LATE B. BASAVARAJ
     AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
     OCC.: PROFESSOR
     RAICHUR INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCE
     R/O. No.30, DOCTOR QUARTERS
     RIMS, RAICHR,
     DIST. RAICHUR - 584 101.
                                                     ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
    R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

      THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND QUASH THE
REGISTRATION OF COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO. 202/2022 FOR THE
OFFENCE         PUNISHABLE           UNDER         SECTION         4(iii)
OF PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, 1955, SECTION 3(1) (p),
3(1)(q), 3(1) (r) , 3 (1) (za) (E), 3 (1) (zc), 3(2) (VA), 3(2) (vii) OF
THE SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT
2015 AND SECTION 217 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF
2ND ADD. DISTRICT SESSION COURT DHARWAD, HUBLI DHARWAD
SUB URBAN POLICE STATION, DHARWAD AND ALL FURTHER
PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION WITH SAME. AND FOR FURTHER
AND OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEM FIT AND
PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.


IN CRIMINAL PETITION No.103100 OF 2022

BETWEEN:

DR. MAHESH DESAI
S/O SHRIKANTAPPA
                           3



AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS
IN CHARGE DIRECTOR
DHARWAD INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH
AND NEURO SCIENCES
BELAGAVI ROAD,
DHARWAD - 580 001.
                                            ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI NEELENDRA D.GUNDE, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY
    SUB-URBAN POLICE STATION
    DHARWAD
    REPRESENTED BY
    THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
    HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
    DHARWAD - 580 001.

2 . DR. RAMESH BABU
    S/O LATE B.BASAVARAJ
    AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
    PROFESSOR
    RAICHUR INSTITUTE OF
    MEDICAL SCIENCE
    R/O. NO.30, DOCTOR QUARTERS
    RIMS, RAICHUR
    DIST. RAICHUR - 584 101.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
    R-2 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)


     THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C., PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND TO QUASH THE
REGISTRATION OF COMPLAINT IN CRIME NO. 202/2022 FOR THE
OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 4 (III) OF PROTECTION
                                   4



OF CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 1955, SECTION 3(1) (P) 3(1) (Q) 3(1) (R)
3(1)(ZA) (E) 3(1) (ZC) 3(2) (VA) 3(2) (VII) OF THE SC AND ST
(PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) AMENDMENT ACT 2015 AND
SECTION 217 R/W 34 OF IPC PENDING ON THE FILE OF 2ND ADDL.
DISTRICT AND SESSIONS COURT DHARWAD SUB-URBAN POLICE
STATION DHARWAD ALL FURTHER PROCEEDINGS IN CONNECTION
WITH SAME IN R/O ACCUSED NO.1.


     THESE CRIMINAL PETITIONS HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 10.10.2023, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-


                                 ORDER

The petitioners in both the petitions call in question

registration of a crime in Crime No.202/2022 for the offences

punishable under Section 4 (iii) of Protection of Civil Rights Act

1955, Section 3(1)(p), 3(1)(q), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(za)(E), 3(1)(zc), 3(2)

(va), 3(2)(vii) of the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities)

Amendment Act 2015 (for short 'the Act) and Section 217 r/w 34 of

the IPC, pending on the file of the 2nd Additional District Sessions

Court, Dharwad, Hubli-Dharwad.

2. Heard Sri Sunil S. Desai, learned counsel for petitioner in

Crl.P.No.103145/2022, Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, learned counsel for

petitioner in Crl.P.No.103100/2022 and Sri V.S.Kalasurmath,

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent No.1. -

State, in both the petitions. The second respondent - complainant

though served, is unrepresented. Therefore, the learned counsel

for petitioner and learned High Court Government Pleader are

heard.

3. Facts adumbrated in Crl.P.No.103145/2022, are as follows:

The second respondent is the complainant, who was an

employee of Raichur Institute of Medical Sciences. Applications

were called for the post of Associate Professor by the Dharwad

Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences (for short 'DIMHANS')

and the second respondent gets selected. He was later promoted

as Professor in Raichur Institute of Medical Sciences. On

26.07.2019, the State Government directed the DIMHANS, to take

action and pass appropriate orders with regard to several

grievances vented out by the complainant. It is thereafter, the

second respondent on 16.12.2019, was permanently transferred to

DIMHANS. The Institution objected to the permanent transfer of

the second respondent and also requested the government to

withdraw the transfer. The petitioner who was also in the cadre of

Professor and on the score that his career progression would be

stalled, filed a writ petition in W.P.No.117865/2019 before this

Court and this Court in terms of the order dated 27.12.2019, grants

an interim order of stay of the order, which directs permanent

transfer of the second respondent. The government during the

pendency of the said petition, withdrew the order of transfer of the

second respondent on 17.02.2022. This was called in question by

the second respondent in W.P.No.145149/2020. This Court after

hearing both the parties, found that the order impugned did not

contain any reason and therefore, directed redoing of the process.

Just before the order could be passed, the second respondent

registers a crime in crime No.109/2020, against the petitioner and

another, alleging offence punishable under Section 3(1)(zc) of the

Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989. The police after investigation, file a 'B' report.

4. All these happen during the pendency of the proceedings

before this Court as afore-quoted. What transpires later is, the

government withdraws the order of transfer of the second

respondent to DIMHANS on 08.12.2020. This leads the second

respondent to register another complaint in crime No.3/2021 before

the Cubbon Park Police Station against one Vijayalakshmi, alleging

offence under Section 3(1)(q) of the Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance,

2014. During the pendency of the aforesaid crimes, the second

respondent reaches the doors of the National Commission for

Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, who entertains the petition

and issues notice. During the pendency of the proceedings before

the Commission, the police on investigation file a second 'B' report

in crime No.3/2021 on 22.09.2021. The second respondent

withdraws the cases pending before this Court, where he has

challenged the withdrawal of the order of transfer. Now, the second

respondent wakes up again and files another compliant before the

Raichur Market Yard Police Station, which is registered as crime

No.82/2022. Since the allegations have happened in DIMHANS,

this is transferred from Raichur to the Sub-Urban Police Station,

Dharwad, where a fresh crime comes to be registered in Crime

No.202/2022 on 27.09.2022, which is the subject matter of

challenge in the present petition.

5. The companion petition in Crl.P.No.103100 of 2022 also

calls in question the very registration of crime in crime

No.202/2022. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.103145/2022 is accused

No.2, while the petitioner in the companion petition -

Crl.P.No.103100/2022 is accused No.1. Therefore, both these

matters are taken up together and considered by this common

order.

6. The petitioner in Crl.P.No.103100/2022 was at the relevant

point in time working as incharge Director of DIMHANS. The facts

that lead to the registration of the crime are identical to the one

that is considered in the companion petition. Therefore, reiteration

of the facts in the present case is not necessary.

7. The learned counsel Sri Neelendra D. Gunde, representing

the petitioner in Crl.P.No.103100/2022 would vehemently contend

that in gross abuse of the provisions of the Atrocities Act, the

complaint is registered only as an act to wreck vengeance for the

act of the petitioners taking recourse to the proceedings in

accordance with law. He would submit that the complainant is in

the habit of registering crimes against his superiors, all for disputes

which relate to service or conditions of service. He would submit

that one such complaint registered against retired directors of

DIMHANS was quashed by a co-ordinate bench of this Court in

Crl.P.No.200823/2016 disposed on 12.04.2019.

8. The learned counsel, Sri Sunil S. Desai, appearing for the

petitioner in Crl.P.No.103145/2022 would also reiterate the

submissions made by the learned counsel Sri Neelendra D. Gunde,

appearing for the petitioner in Crl.P.No.103100/2022. In unison,

both the learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the

registration of the crime is on the face of it, is an abuse of the

process of the law as the provisions of the law is misused.

9. The complainant is served on 05.11.2022 and is not

represented throughout. The interim orders were granted in both

petitions on 10.10.2023 and 19.10.2023, respectively and the same

is extended on several dates. The respondent - complainant is left

unrepresented. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners

and the learned High Court Government Pleader are heard.

10. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute and requires

no reiteration. What triggers the registration of the crime is a

complaint so registered by the second respondent. It would suffice

if the story would commence from the date on which the second

respondent is permanently deputed as Professor of DIMHANS. The

order of the Government deputing the complainant to DIMHANS

reads as follows:

"EªÀjAzÀ:

¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ ¥ÀæzsÁ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ðAiÀÄªÀgÀÄ, DgÉÆÃUÀå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀÄlÄA§ PÀ¯Áåt E¯ÁSÉ (ªÉÊzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ²PÀët) ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ.

EªÀjUÉ:

¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ DgÉÆÃUÀå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀgÀ«eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ..

ªÀiÁ£ÀågÉ,

«µÀAiÀÄ: qÁ|| ©.gÀªÉÄÃ±À ¨Á§Ä, ¥ÁæzÁs å¥ÀPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «bÁUÀzÀ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ gÉÆÃUÀ «¨sÁUÀ, gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ DgÉÆÃUÀå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀgÀ«eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ, E°è£À ªÀÄ£ÉÆÃªÉÊzÀå±Á¸ÀÛç «¨sÁUÀzÀ°è SÁ°¬ÄgÀÄªÀ ¥ÉÆæ¥És¸Àgï ªÀÈAzÀzÀ ¨ÁåPï¯ÁUï ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁqÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÀÄ.

G¯ÉèÃR : 01. DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, ¸ÀªÀiÁd PÀ¯Áåt E¯ÁSÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ:

07.11.2016,

02. DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ, ¸ÀªÀiÁd PÀ¯Áåt E¯ÁSÉ, ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ ¥ÀvÀæ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 20.12.2018.

****

ªÉÄÃ®ÌAqÀ «µÀAiÀÄPÉÌ ¸ÀA§A¢ü¹zÀAvÉ, G¯ÉèÃRzÀ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ®UÀwÛ¹zÉ. ¸ÀzÀj ¥ÀvæzÀ À°è qÁ|| © gÀªÉÄÃ±À ¨Á§Ä, ¥ÁæzÁs å¥ÀPÀgÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ «¨sÁUÀzÀ ªÀÄÄRå¸ÀÜgÀÄ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ gÉÆÃUÀ «¨sÁUÀ, gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀÄ EªÀgÀ£ÀÄß zsÁgÀªÁqÀ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ DgÉÆÃUÀå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀgÀ«eÁÕ£ÀUÀ¼À ¸ÀA¸ÉÜ, E°è£À ªÀÄ£ÉÆÃªÉÊzÀå±Á¸ÀÛç «¨sÁUÀzÀ°è SÁ°¬ÄgÀÄªÀ ¥ÉÆæ¥És¸Àgï ªÀÈAzÀzÀ ¨ÁåPï¯ÁUï ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ £ÉÃªÀÄPÁw ªÀiÁqÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀ PÀÄjvÁVzÀÄÝ, G¯ÉèÃRzÀ ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À°è£À «µÀAiÀÄªÀ£ÀÄß ¤AiÀÄªÀiÁ£ÀÄ¸ÁgÀ ¥Àj²Ã°¹ PÉÊUÉÆArgÀÄªÀ PÀæªÀÄzÀ ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß PÀÆqÀ¯ÉÃ ¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ ¸À°è¸ÀÄªÀAvÉ vÀªÀÄä£ÀÄß PÉÆÃgÀ®Ä ¤zÉÃð²¸À®ànÖzÉÝÃ£É.

vÀªÀÄä «±Áé¹, ¸À»/-

(PÉ.ªÀÄÄgÀ½) ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ C¢üÃ£À PÁAiÀÄðzÀ²ð - 2 DgÉÆÃUÀå ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀÄlÄA§ PÀ¯Áåt E¯ÁSÉ, (ªÀåzÀåQÃAiÀÄ ²PÀët)"

This is immediately protested to by the Director of DIMHANS, who

is the petitioner in Crl.P.No.103100/2022, by a detailed

communication. This results in generation of litigation. The

petitioner in Crl.P.No.103145/2022 challenges the deputation before

this Court in W.P.No.117865/2019. The co-ordinate bench of this

Court grants an interim order on 27.12.2019, which reads as

follows:

"Issue notice.

Learned Government Advocate is directed to take notice for respondent No.1 Sri Sunil Desai, learned counsel directed to take notice for respondent No.2 Issue emergent notice to respondent No.3. In addition to that, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to takeout hand summons to respondent No.3.

Stay of Annexure-F, if respondent No.3 has not taken charge, till the next date of hearing.

Post this matter on 08.01.2020."

This Court granted an interim order of stay as afore-quoted, only if

the complainant had not taken charge. It transpires that the

government withdraws the order of permanent transfer on

17.02.2022. During the pendency of the earlier petition, this

becomes the subject matter of W.P.No.145149/2020 filed by the

complainant. The writ petition comes to be disposed on

02.11.2020, by the following order:

"9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the learned Addl. Government Advocate and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.4 and 6, as no reasons are assigned in the impugned order, the writ petition is liable to be allowed on this ground itself. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

(i) The writ petition is allowed.

(ii) The impugned order dated 17.02.2020 as per Annexure-J is set aside. The respondent No.2 is directed to pass appropriate speaking order after affording an opportunity to the petitioner and respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6, within a period of seven days from today.

(iii) Respondent No.2 shall make it very clear in the order as to which institution is liable to pay the salary to the petitioner from 28.12.2019.

(iv) All parties are directed to appear before the second respondent on 10.11.2020 without awaiting for further notice from the second respondent.

(v) All contention of the parties are left open."

The Court sets aside the order of withdrawal on the score that it did

not contain any reasons and directed appropriate orders be passed

afresh. Orders afresh are passed on 08.12.2020, again

withdrawing the order of transfer that was earlier made. This was

called in question by the complainant in W.P.No.102228/2021 and

the petition was withdrawn with liberty to file fresh petition. What

the complaint would do in the interregnum is, going on registering

crimes against the Director and the person who had objected his

entry into DIMHANS, they are the petitioners. The first of the

crimes registered is on 28.08.2020 in crime No.109/2020. The

police after investigation file a 'B' report. The second of the crimes

is registered in Crime No.3/2021, the police again after

investigation file a 'B' report.

11. Sensing failure in the aforesaid crimes, the complainant

rushes to the doors of the National Commission for Scheduled

Castes and Scheduled Tribes. The Commission issues notice and

directs to retain the complainant in the Institution. Immediately

thereafter, petitioner in Crl.P.No.103145/2022 files a petition in

W.P.No.petition 103049/2021. This Court passes a detailed interim

order which reads as follows:

"Heard the learned counsel for¬ the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Government had passed an order dated 08.12.2020, vide Annexure-M, directing the 4th respondent to report back in the parent Institution at Raichur. The said order was questioned by the 4th respondent before this Court in W.P.No.102228/2021 and this Court, while rejecting the interim prayer made by the 4th respondent in the said writ petition, had directed the 4th respondent to report to duty before the 5th respondent Institution, which is the parent Institution, subject to further orders from this Court. However, thereafterwards, the 4th respondent has approached the 2nd respondent, who has now passed an order vide Annexure-A, directing to retain the 4th respondent in the 3rd respondent Institution. He submits that the order now passed by respondent No.2 is contrary to the orders passed by this Court while rejecting the interim prayer made by the 4th respondent herein in W.P.No.102228/2021. He also submits that the 2nd respondent has exceeded its

jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. He also relies upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Karnataka Antibiotics and Another Vs. National Commission SC and ST Other reported in ILR 2008 KAR 3305.

Taking into consideration the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and also having regard to the material available on record, there shall be an interim order, as prayed for, until further orders."

On the grant of the interim order, the complainant again senses

failure; registers a third complaint now before the Raichur Market

Yard Police Station in Crime No.82/2022. Since the events have

happened in Dharwad, the crime is transferred to the Sub-Urban

Police Station which comes to be registered as crime No.202/2022.

Here a slew of offences are instituted they are, Section 4 (iii) of

Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955, Section 3(1)(p), 3(1)(q),

3(1)(r), 3(1)(za)(E), 3(1)(zc), 3(2) (va), 3(2)(vii) of the Act and

Section 217 r/w 34 of the IPC. It is this that has driven the

petitioners to this Court in the subject petitions.

12. Since the present petitions sprung from the complaint,

the complaint requires to be noted. The complaint reads as follows:

"F ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £Á£ÀÄ qÁ|| ©.gÀªÉÄÃ±À ¨Á§Ä, ¥ÉÆæÃ¥sÉ¸Àgï ¸À°è¸ÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÉÃ£ÉAzÀgÉ, £Á£ÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ£ÀéAiÀÄ ¢£ÁAPÀ 19.12.2019 PÉÌ jªÀiïì, gÁAiÀÄZÀÆj¤AzÀ ©qÀÄUÀqÉAiÀiÁV rªÀiÁ£ïì, zsÁgÀªÁqÀzÀ°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 20.12.2019 gÀAzÀÄ ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ ¹.n.¹.AiÀÄ£ÀÄß

¸ÀPÁðgÀPÉÌ PÀ¼ÀÄ»¹ £Á£ÀÄ 2011 jAzÀ SÁ° EzÀÝ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwAiÀÄ ¨ÁåPï¯ÁUï ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀgÀ ºÀÄzÉÝAiÀÄ°è ¸ÉÃªÉ ¸À°è¸ÀÄwÛzÉÝ£ÀÄ. vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ d£ÀªÀj 2020 gÀ°è £À£ÀUÉ MAzÀÄ ¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀßAiÀÄÄ £ÀªÀÄÆ¢¹ ¤zÉÃð±ÀPÀgÀÄ, rªÀiÁ£ïì, zsÁgÀªÁqÀ EªÀgÀ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è CªÀgÀÄ C¢üPÁgÀªÀ£ÀÄß zÀÄ§ð¼ÀPÉ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ eÁw PÁgÀt¢AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ rªÀiÁ£ïì£À°è ºÁdgÁw ¥ÀÄ¸ÀÛPÀzÀ°è gÀÄdÄ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ, Qè¤PÀ¯ï PÁAiÀÄð¤ªÀðºÀuÉ ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ, «zÁåyðUÀ½UÉ G¥À£Áå¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ vÀPÀët¢AzÀ ¸ÀÜVvÀUÉÆ½¸À¨ÉÃPÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀÆa¹zÀgÀÄ. ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ºÁdgÁw EzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £À£ÀUÉ vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆqÀÄªÀ GzÉÝÃ±À¢AzÀ «£ÁBPÁgÀt £À£Àß ¸ÀA§¼ÀªÀ£ÀÄß vÀqÉ»r¢gÀÄvÁÛgÉ.(sic) vÀzÀ£ÀAvÀgÀ £ÁåAiÀÄ®AiÀÄzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ EzÀÝgÀÆ ¸ÀºÀ £Á£ÀÄ C£À¢üÃPÀÈvÀªÁV rªÀiÁ£ïì£À°è PÉ®¸À ªÀiÁqÀÄwÛgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É JAzÀÄ J®ègÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ CªÀªiÀ Á£À ªÀiÁr ¥ÀÄ£ÀB £À£ÀUÉ PÉÆÃ«qï - 19 ¥ÁægÀA¨sÀzÀ°è zsÁgÀªÁqÀzÀ°è ªÀ¸ÀwUÀÈºÀ, ¸ÀA§¼À ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÉÃªÁ ¸Ë¯¨sÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¸ÀºÀ ¤ÃqÀzÉÃ vÉÆAzÀgÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. E°èAiÀÄªÀgÉUÉ £À£ÀUÉ §gÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ ¸ÀA§¼À ªÉÃvÀ£À ºÁUÀÆ E¤ßvÀgÀ ¨sÀvÉåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀÅ¢®è.

ªÀÄÄAzÀÄªÀgÉzÀÄ, £Á£ÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀ£ÁVzÀÝjAzÀ qÁ|| ªÀÄºÉÃ±À zÉÃ¸Á¬Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ qÁ|| gÁWÀªÉÃAzÀæ £ÁAiÀÄPÀ C¢üPÁgÀ zÀÄgÀÄ¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ EªÀgÀÄ ºÀ®ªÁgÀÄ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄUÀ½UÉ £Á£ÀÄ ¥ÁæzsÁå¥ÀPÀ ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ ¨sÁgÀvÀzÀ AiÀiÁªÀÅzÉÃ «zÁå¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÉ C£ÀºÀð JAzÀÄ ¸ÀvÀå ±ÉÆÃzsÀ£ÉUÉ M®¥ÀqÀzÀ «ªÁ¢vÀ, ¸ÀÈ¶Ö¹zÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ (¸ÀzÀå ªÀiÁ£Àå gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀÄ ¸ÀvÀæ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è «ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ zÁR¯É) ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤Ãr, £À£À «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ¤£À ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄUÀ½UÉ ºÀÆqÀÄvÁÛ ªÀÄºÉÃ±À zÉÃ¸Á¬Ä EªÀgÀÄ GzÉÝÃ±À¥ÀÆªÀðPÀªÁV £Á£ÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀ rªÀiÁ£ïìzÀ°è ªÀgÀ¢ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀ £ÀAvÀgÀ ªÀÄºÉÃ±À zÉÃ¸Á¬Ä EªÀjUÉ ¨sÉÃn ªÀiÁr ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁrzÀgÀÆ GzÉÝÃ±À¥ÀÆªÀðPÀªÁV GzÁ¹Ã£ÀvÉ¬ÄAzÀ ªÀwð¹ £À£ÉÆßAzÉUÉ ¸ÀjAiÀiÁV ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀzÉÃ £À£ÀUÉ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. £À£Àß ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À ¸ÀºÉÆÃzÉÆåÃV «ÄvÀægÀ JzÀÄjUÉ £Á£ÀÄ ªÀiÁvÀ£Ár¹zÀgÀÆ ªÀiÁvÀ£ÁqÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆ¼ÀîzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£ÀUÉ ¹UÀvÀPÀÌAvÀºÀ ¸Ë®¨sÀåUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀzÉÃ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ ºÁUÀÆ ºÀtPÁ¹£À vÉÆAzÀgÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. ¸À£ï 2020gÀ ¸ÀévÀAvÀæöå ¢£ÁZÀgÀuÉ CAUÀªÁV £Á£ÀÄ ªÀÄºÉÃ±À zÉÃ¸Á¬ÄgÀªÀjUÉ ±ÀÄ¨sÀ PÉÆÃgÀ®Ä CªÀgÀ£ÀÄß ¸ÉßÃºÀ ¨sÁªÀ¢AzÀ PÉÊPÀÄ®ÄQ ºÉUÀ®Ä ªÉÄÃ¯É PÉÊ ºÁQ C©ü£ÀA¢¹zÉÝ CªÀjUÉ £À£Àß ¸Àà±Àð¢AzÀ QjQj GAmÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉAzÀÄ J¯ÁègÀ ªÀÄÄAzÉ ºÉÃ½PÉÆArgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. FUÉ £À£ÀUÉ ¤gÀAvÀgÀ ±ÉÆÃµÀuÉUÉ M¼À¥Àr¹gÀÄvÁÛgÉ ºÁUÀÆ rªÀiÁ£ïì¤AzÀ ªÀUÁðªÀuÉ DzÀ £ÀAvÀgÀªÀÇ £À£ÀUÉ ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ¥ÀvÀæ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ ¥ÀvÁæAQvÀ C¢üPÁjUÉ ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ªÀiÁqÀ¨ÉÃPÁzÀ £ÀªÀÄÆ£ÉAiÀÄ°è ©qÀÄUÀqÉ ¥ÀæªÀiÁt¥ÀvÀæªÀ£ÀÄß ¤ÃqÀzÉÃ EgÀÄªÀÅzÀÄ, EzÀÄ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ DzÉÃ±ÀzÀ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. £Á£ÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀªÀ£ÁVzÀÝjAzÀ £À£ÀUÉ CªÀPÁ±À ¹PÀÌgÉÃ ºÉaÑ£À ºÀÄzÉÝUÉ J°è ºÉÆÃUÀÄvÁÛgÉÆÃ CAvÁ £À£ÀUÉ ¤gÀAvÀgÀ ¸Ë®¨sÀå ªÀAavÀ£À£ÁßV ªÀiÁr £À£ÀUÉ C¸Ààø±Àå£ÀAvÉ QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

EzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝÃ±À¢AzÀ rªÀiÁ¤ì£À qÁ|| gÁWÀªÉÃAzÀæ £ÁAiÀÄPÀ EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀºÀ gÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw DAiÉÆÃUÀ, £ÀªÀ zÉºÀ° gÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ ²¥sÁgÀ¹ìUÉ «gÀÄzÀÞªÁV ªÀÄºÉÃ±À zÉÃ¸Á¬Ä gÀªÀgÀÄ ¤ÃrgÀÄªÀ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ¥ÀvÀæUÀ¼À£ÀÄß zÀÈrüÃPÀj¹ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ¤r £À£Àß ºÁUÀÆ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ qÁ||CAdÄ ¨Á¯Á, ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ, gÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw DAiÉÆÃUÀ, £ÀªÀ zÉºÀ° gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÀ£ÁðlPÀzÀ ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄ zsÁgÀªÁqÀzÀ°è zÁªÉ ºÀÆrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

qÁ|| gÁWÀªÉÃAzÀæ £ÁAiÀÄPÀ EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀvÀå ±ÉÆÃzsÀ£ÉUÉ M¼À¥ÀqÀzÀ «ªÁ¢vÀ, ¸ÀÈ¶Ö¹zÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G¥ÀAiÉÆÃUÀ ªÀiÁrPÉÆAqÀÄ (¸ÀzÀå ªÀiÁ£Àå gÁAiÀÄZÀÆgÀÄ ¸ÀvÀæ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è

«ZÁgÀuÉAiÀÄ°ègÀÄªÀ zÁR¯É) £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî PÁ£ÀÆ¤£À ªÀåªÀgÀºÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ªÀiÁ£Àå GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄzÀ°è ªÀiÁqÀÄªÀ ªÀÄÆ®PÀ £À£Àß £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ºÀPÀÄÌUÀ¼À£ÀÄß G®èAX¹zÀÄÝ EgÀÄvÀÛzÉ ºÁUÀÆ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî, ¸ÀÈ¶Ö¹zÀ zÁR¯ÁwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ¥ÀæªÀiÁtÂÃPÀj¹ (¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî C¦qÀ«mï) UËgÀªÁ¤évÀ GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ªÉÆÃ¸À ªÀiÁr £À£Àß ºÀUÀÆ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁwUÉ ¸ÉÃjzÀ qÁ|| CAdÄ ¨Á¯Á, ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ, gÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw DAiÉÆÃUÀ, £ÀªÀzÉºÀ° gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ªÉÆPÀzÀÝªÉÄAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ºÀÆrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

DzÀÝjAzÀ qÁ|| ªÀÄºÉÃ±À zÉÃ¸Á¬Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ qÁ||gÁWÀªÉÃAzÀæ £ÁAiÀÄPÀ EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝÃ±À¢AzÀ UÀÄA¥ÀÄ PÀÆrPÉÆAqÀÄ eÁw PÁgÀtUÀ½AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ rªÀiÁ£ïì, zsÁgÀªÁqÀzÀ°è PÀvÀðªÀå ¤ªÀð»¸ÀÄªÁUÀ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £ÀAvÀgÀ vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆqÀÄªÀ GzÉÝÃ±À¢AzÀ ¤gÀAvÀgÀ C¸Ààø±ÀåvÉ DZÀj¹ vÉÆAzÀgÉ ¤ÃrgÀÄvÁÛgÉ. GzÉÝÃ±À¥ÀÆªÀðPÀªÁV ºÁUÀÆ ªÉÆÃ¸ÀzÀ ¤ÃwUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C¼ÀªÀr¹PÉÆAqÀÄ PÁ£ÀÆ¤£À «¢ü¤zÉÃð±À£ÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄßAiÀÄ ¥Á°¸ÀzÉÃ M§âgÀ£ÉÆ§âgÀÄ zÀAqÀ£É¬ÄAzÀ gÀQë¸ÀÄªÀzÀPÉÆ¸ÀÌgÀ, £À£Àß CºÀðvÉAiÀÄ §UÉÎ C¢üPÁjUÀ¼À°è ¢£ÁAPÀ 30.03.2020 jAzÀ E°èAiÀÄªÀgÉUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ PÀ£ÁðlPÀ ¸ÀPÁðgÀzÀ EvÀgÉÃ £Áå ¸ÀA¸ÉÜUÀ½UÉ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî ªÀiÁ»wAiÀÄ£ÀÄß ¤qÀÄwÛzÀÄÝ £À£Àß£ÀÄß rªÀiÁ£ïì, zsÁgÀªÁqÀzÀ°è PÉ®¸À¢AzÀ §»µÀÌj¹ ¤gÀAvÀgÀ C¸Ààø±ÀåvÉ DZÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ°è vÉÆqÀVzÁÝgÉ. CªÀgÀÄ C¥ÀæªÀiÁtÂPÀ ºÁUÀÆ ªÉÆÃ¸ÀzÀ PÀæªÀÄUÀ¼À£ÀÄß C£ÀÄ¸Àj¹vÀÛ CªÀÅUÀ¼À£ÀÄß DqÀ½vÁvÀäPÀ «ZÁgÀªÉAzÀÄ ¸ÀªÀÄyð¸ÀÄvÁÛ CªÀgÀ ¸ÉßÃ»vÀgÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉ ¸ÀPÁðj £ËPÀgÀgÀ eÉÆvÉ ±Á«Ä¯ÁV ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀ §»µÁÌgÀªÀ£ÀÄß ¤gÀAvÀgÀªÁV ºÉÃgÀÄvÁÛ £À£Àß «gÀÄzÀÞ C¸Ààø±ÀåvÉAiÀÄ DZÀgÀuÉAiÀÄ°è vÉÆqÀVgÀÄvÁÛgÉ.

F J¯Áè ªÉÄÃ°£À DA±ÀUÀ¼ÀÄ PÀ®A 4(iii) ¦.¹.Dgï, PÁAiÉÄÝ CrAiÀÄ°è ºÁUÀÆ EvÀgÉÃ PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ºÁUÀÆ ¨sÁgÀvÀ zÀAqÀ ¸ÀA»vÉ CrAiÀÄ°è ¸ÀAeÉÕÃAiÀÄ C¥ÀgÁzsÀ DVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ. F C¥ÀgÁzsÀUÀ½AzÀ £À£ÀUÉ ¸ÁªÀiÁfPÀªÁV ±ÉÆÃµÀuÉAiÀiÁVzÀÄÝ, £À£ÀUÉ ªÀÄvÀÄÛ £À£Àß PÀÄlÄA§PÉÌ ªÀiÁ£À¹PÀ »A¸É ºÁUÀÆ QgÀÄPÀÄ¼À GAmÁVgÀÄvÀÛzÉ.

qÁ|| ªÀÄºÉÃ±À zÉÃ¸Á¬Ä ºÁUÀÆ qÁ|| gÁWÀªÉÃAzÀæ £ÁAiÀÄPÀ EªÀgÀÄ ¸ÀªÀiÁ£À GzÉÝÃ±À¢AzÀ £À£Àß ªÀÄvÀÄÛ qÁ|| CAdÄ ¨Á¯Á, ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ, gÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw DAiÉÆÃUÀ, £ÀªÀ zÉºÀ° gÀªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ ¸ÀÄ¼ÀÄî C¥ÁæªÀiÁtÂPÀªÁV UËgÀªÁ¤évÀ GZÀÒ £ÁåAiÀiÁ®AiÀÄPÉÌ ªÉÆÃ¸À ªÀiÁr PÁ£ÀÆ£ÀÄ ªÀåªÀºÁgÀUÀ¼À£ÀÄß ºÀÆr, PÀvÀðªÀåPÉÌ CrØ¥Àr¹ vÉÆAzÀgÉ PÉÆqÀÄwÛzÁÝgÉ.

DzÀÝjAzÀ qÁ|| ªÀÄºÉÃ±À zÉÃ¸Á¬Ä ªÀÄvÀÄÛ qÁ|| gÁWÀªÉÃAzÀæ £ÁAiÀÄPÀ EªÀgÀ «gÀÄzÀÞ PÁ£ÀÆ¤£À PÀæªÀÄ vÉUÉzÀÄPÉÆAqÀÄ £À£Àß ºÁUÀÆ qÁ|| CAdÄ ¨Á¯Á, ¸ÀzÀ¸ÀågÀÄ, gÁ¶ÖçÃAiÀÄ ¥Àj²µÀÖ eÁw DAiÉÆÃUÀ EªÀjUÉ ¸ÀA«zsÁ¤PÀªÁV ¤ÃqÀ®ànÖgÀÄªÀ £ÁUÀjÃPÀ ºÀPÀÄÌUÀ¼À£ÀÄß gÀPÀëuÉ ªÀiÁqÀ®Ä PÉÆÃgÀÄvÉÛÃ£É."

(Emphasis added)

A perusal at the complaint would clearly indicate that it is registered

only to wreck vengeance against the petitioners who had stopped

the entry of the complainant into the DIMHANS by taking recourse

to legal proceedings and at every step, the complainant senses a

meltdown and registers repeated crimes against these petitioners in

different police stations. All for the offences alleging the ones

punishable under the Act.

13. If the facts obtaining in the case at hand are noticed,

what would unmistakably emerge is, the gross misuse and abuse of

the provisions of the Act. These are cases which are projected as

cases of Atrocity, while in effect, they are the cases which are used

by the petitioner, a person belonging to Scheduled Caste to settle

his personal scores against persons who have come in the way of

his career progression albeit legally. There is not an iota of

ingredient present of all the offences that are alleged against the

petitioners. The petitioners are now made to suffer for having

objected the entry of the complainant into DIMHANS, which the

government itself accepts and withdraws the order of transfer.

These acts of the petitioners by no stretch of imagination, can be

construed to be offending any of the provisions of the Act. The

alleged offences repeatedly made are the ones punishable for the

following offences:

"Section 3(1)(p), 3(1)(q), 3(1)(r), 3(1)(za)(E), 3(1)(zc), 3(2) (va), 3(2)(vii) of the Act and

Section 217 r/w 34 of the IPC."

Section 3(1)(p) makes the accused punishable under the Act.

If the accused would institute false, malicious or vexatious suit or a

criminal case against the member belonging to SC/ST; Section

3(1)(q) punishes an accused if he gives any false or frivolous

information to any public servant and causes annoyance to a

member belonging to SC/ST would become punishable under the

Act; Section 3(1)(r) punishes a person who intentionally insults or

intimidates with intent to humiliate a member belonging to SC/ST,

in any place within public view; Section 3(1)(za)(E) punishes any

person who prevents a member of any SC/ST practicing any

profession and causing any hindrance to such practice; Section

3(1)(zc) deals with preventing a member belonging to SC/ST into a

place of worship or any incidental places; Section 3(2)(va) punishes

a person who knowingly commits an offence or disturbs such

property belonging to a member of SC/ST and Section 3(2)(vii)

punishes any public servant committing an offence under the Act.

What remains is Section 217 of the IPC. Section 217 of the IPC

punishes a public servant disobeying direction of law. The

aforesaid, form the contents of every complaint registered by the

complainant, not once nor twice but thrice.

14. If the aforesaid ingredients of the offences are considered

on the backdrop of the facts narrated hereinabove, the

unmistakable inference that can be drawn is gross reviling of the

provisions of the Act. Reviling I say, is at every step, the

petitioners have taken legal proceedings before this Court to call in

question the entry of the complainant into DIMHANS. If taking of

legal proceedings is construed as Atrocity against the members

belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, it would have

a chilling effect on exercise of constitutional rights by the persons

like the petitioners. Not one crime, but three crimes are registered

at different police stations. The first one in crime No.109/2020

before the Dharwad Sub-Urban Police Station; this results in a 'B'

report being filed by the police; the 'B' report becomes final. The

second crime is registered before the Cubbon Park Sub-Division

Police Station in crime No.3/2021. The other one is before the

Raichur Market Yard Police Station. This complaint is transferred to

Dharwad Sub Urban Police Station and it is numbered as Crime

No.202/2022, this is the impugned crime.

15. In the wake of mushrooming of cases of misuse of the

provisions of the Act, the Apex Court in the case of GHULAM

MUSTAFA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ANOTHER1 observes

and directs as follows:

"38. This Court would indicate that the officers, who institute an FIR, based on any complaint, are duty-bound to be vigilant before invoking any provision of a very stringent statute, like the SC/ST Act, which imposes serious penal consequences on the concerned accused.

The officer has to be satisfied that the provisions he seeks to invoke prima facie apply to the case at hand. We clarify that our remarks, in no manner, are to dilute the applicability of special/stringent statutes, but only to remind the police not to mechanically apply the law, dehors reference to the factual position."

(Emphasis supplied)

It is therefore, necessary for every Officer who would institute a

crime based on any complaint to be vigilant in registering such

crimes without appropriate verification. The case at hand should

become an eye opener to the Officers who would seek to register

crimes on such allegations to follow the dictum of the Apex Court

2023 SCC Online SC 603

supra. As the Apex Court has observed that this cannot be treated

as a manner to dilute the applicability of the stringent statute but

only reminder not to mechanically apply the law, dehors reference

to the factual position.

16. The case at hand becomes an apt illustration to what the

Apex Court has observed. A clear service dispute between the

petitioners and the complainant is dressed with a colour of atrocity

and multiple crimes are registered by the complainant. Therefore, if

further proceedings are permitted to continue, it would become an

abuse of the process of the law, result in patent injustice.

17. For the aforesaid reasons, the following:

ORDER

a. The criminal petition Nos.103145/2022 and 103100/2022

are allowed.

b. The proceedings in Crime No.202/2022 pending on the file

of the 2nd Additional District Sessions Court, Dharwad,

Hubli-Dharwad, stands quashed, qua the petitioners.