Padmanabha Ns @ Paddi vs State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 982 Kant

                          1


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

       DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                         BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN

       WRIT PETITION NO.20228 OF 2021 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN

1 . PADMANABHA N.S. @ PADDI
    S/O SHIVARAMAIAH
    AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS
    RESIDING AT WARD NO.21
    NARAYANASWAMY LAYOUT
    ANEKAL TOWN ANEKAL
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
    PIN CODE-562106

2 . RAGHU
    S/O MUNISWAMAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS,
    RESIDING AT HAREHALLI
    KASABA HOBLI
    ANEKAL TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
    PIN CODE-562106

3 . SHIVARAJ
    S/O PUTTAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
    RESIDING AT AREYHALLI
    KASABA HOBLI
    ANEKAL TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
    PIN CODE-562106
                                      ... PETITIONERS

(BY SRI PRASANNA KUMAR P, ADVOCATE)
                           2



AND

1 . STATE OF KARNATAKA
    BY ANEKAL POLICE STATION
    ANEKAL CIRCLE
    REPRESENTED BY ITS
    STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
    HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
    BUILDING OPP VIDHANA SOUDHA
    DR B.R. AMBEKDAR VEEDHI
    BENGALURU-560 001

2 . D SRINIVAS
    S/O DASAPPA
    AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,
    RESIDING AT
    TAMMANAYAKANAHALLI GRAMA
    KASABA HOBLI
    ANEKAL TALUK
    BENGALURU RURAL - 562 106

                                      ... RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI ROHITH B.J., HCGP FOR R1
 SRI H. PAVANACHANDRA SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

      THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS
AND QUASH THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS IN SPL.C.NO.460/2019
PENDING ON THE FILE OF LEARNED II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT,
BENGALURU AS AGAINST THE PETITIONERS/ ACCUSED NOS. 1,
3, 4 FOR OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 143, 341,
447, 504 ,506, 384 READ WITH SECTION 149 IPC AND
SECTION 3(1)(r)(s) OF THE SCHEDULE CASTE AND SCHEDULED
TRIBE (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) ACT (PRODUCED VIDE
ANNEXURE-D) AND ETC.

     THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 09.01.2022 THIS DAY, THE COURT
MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  3


                               ORDER

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner-accused

Nos.1,3 and 4 under article 226 of Constitution of India

read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C for quashing the criminal

proceedings in Spl.C.No.460/2019 pending on the file of II

Additional District and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru Rural

District, and to quash the order passed by the learned

Special Judge on the discharge application, for the offences

punishable under Section 143, 341, 447, 504, 506, 384

read with 149 of IPC Section 3(1) (r) (s) of the Schedule

Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act

(hereinafter referred as the SC & ST Act).

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the

petitioner, learned High Court Government Pleader for

respondent No.1 and learned Senior counsel for the

respondent No.2.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on the

complaint filed by the respondent No.2 the police

registered FIR and it is alleged in the complaint dated

30.7.2019 that he is running a resort in Sy.No.176/50 and

176/51 under the Memorandum of Understanding dated

09.07.2018 and the project agreement dated 12.7.2018

and it is stated that he has invested huge money also he

has engaged the staffs for maintenance. The owners of

the resort made an agreement with the accused No.5 and

trying to intervene with his possession, therefore he had

filed suit in O.S.No.341/2019 and obtained the injunction

order against them. Inspite of the same, on 29.7.2019 the

accused Nos.1 to 5 came to the resort, when the CW2 to

CW4 were present and the accused picked up quarrel with

CW2 and threatened with dire consequences. Also, they

asked to remove the tractor otherwise they will kill them,

otherwise they will assault the complainant as well as the

CW2 to CW4. Hence, he has lodged the complaint, police

registered FIR for the offence punishable under Section

143, 341, 447, 504, 506 read with 149 of IPC and during

the investigation, the police invoked Section 3 of SC & ST

Act, obtained the permission of Special Court and after the

investigation they filed the charge sheet. The petitioner

had moved application under Section 227 of Cr.P.C before

the Special Court for discharge, which came to be rejected,

hence petitioners/accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 are before this

Court.

4. The Learned counsel for the petitioners has

contended that the complainant is not an eye witness and

he has filed complaint on the information given by CW2

and CW3. The complaint came to be registered by police

on 1.8.2019, but the statement of CW2 and CW3 has been

recorded only after one and half month. There is no

whisper in the complaint regarding taking the caste name

and abusing the complainant by the petitioner. He further

contended that the accused Nos.3 and 4 i.e., petitioner

Nos.2 and 3 belongs to the community of scheduled caste

and scheduled tribe, therefore Section 3 of the SC&ST Act

will not attract against them. Further contended that there

was civil suit against accused No.5 and complainant, where

the petitioners are not the party to the civil proceedings.

Therefore, framing of charges against all the accused

persons under Special Act i.e, Section of 3 of SC & ST is

not correct. The trial court has not properly given any

finding in the discharge application, therefore prayed for

allowing the petition and quash the criminal proceedings

against the petitioner.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for

respondent No.2 has strenuously objected and produced

some of the documents and contended that the accused

No.5 along with the accused Nos.1 to 4 came to the spot

and picked up quarrel and abused the complainant in filthy

language. The CW2 recorded the quarrel and abusive

words used by the accused persons against the

complainant and later the accused No.2 was made to

delete the Whatsapp messages and video messages. The

accused Nos.3 and 4 said to be belonging to same

community, therefore the offence of Section 3 (1)(r)(s) will

not attract against them. But he has threatened to the

dire consequences and abused with filthy language which

will attract Section 504 and 506 of IPC. The accused Nos.2

and 5 have not filed any such petitions. The accused

Nos.1, 2 and 5, belongs to a different community people.

The allegation against the petitioner/ accused Nos.1, 2 and

5, clearly attracts above said provisions. They all came

together to the spot and picked up quarrel and abused the

complainant by taking the name of his caste in presence of

others. Therefore, the accused cannot be discharged from

the case. If at all the offence under Section 3 of the SC &

ST Act will not attract against accused Nos.3 and 4, the

trial court can frame the appropriate charges against

appropriate accused, therefore entire proceedings cannot

be quashed. In support of his argument, learned counsel

for the respondent No.2 relied upon the judgment of

Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2021 Supreme

Court 3931 AIR Online 2021 SC 512 in case of

Kaptain Sing Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and hence

prayed for dismissing the petition.

6. The learned HCGP objected the petition and

supported argument of counsel for respondent No.2.

7. Having heard the arguments and perused the

records, especially the complaint made by the CW1 where

he has stated, he is running the resorts by an agreement

with the owners of the land under the Memorandum of

Understanding and he has left some people for

maintenance of the resort. The accused

No.5/Nagabhushana said to be an agreement holder with

the owner of the land Sai Prakash and accused No.5 is

trying to interfere with the possession of the property.

Therefore, he has obtained injunction by filing suit in

OS No.341/2019. Further it is referred that on 29.07.2019

at 11.30 p.m., the accused Nos.1 to 5 came to the spot,

picked up quarrel with CW2 to CW3 and trying to interfere

with the possession of the property by claiming rights over

the property. The accused persons also said to have

threatened the complainant and CW2 and CW3 with

criminal intimidation that they will finish them, if they have

not left the place. The name of the accused parsons are

mentioned in the complaint. However, it is further alleged

that the police recorded the statement of CW2 and CW3,

where both of them have categorically stated the accused

persons abused complainant in filthy language and also are

taking the name of his caste and insulted him stating that,

he is only a stone cutter and his work is only cutting stone,

and that he should not come and do the business, if he will

not remove the business, then they will teach the lesson

by committing murder. The accused Nos.1 to 5 altogether

came with a common intention to commit the offence. The

statement of CW2 and CW3 reveals that the CW3 was

trying to record the video through his mobile phone,

regarding the quarrel made by the accused persons. But

later, the accused No.2 snatched the mobile phone and

deleted the video clippings, thereby trying to destroy the

evidence. When the complainant is in possession of the

property, running the business after obtaining the

injunction order from the competent Civil Court, the

accused persons do not have any business to enter into

the possession and enjoyment of the property of the

complainant. All accused came to the spot and picked up

quarreled with the CW2 and CW3 and abused the

complainant in their presence by taking the caste name as

Wadda. Ofcourse, Section 3 of the SC & ST Act, will not

attract against accused Nos.3 and 4 who are also the

persons belonging to the same community. However, the

remaining offences under Sections 447, 341, 504 and 506

read with 149 of IPC may attract against accused Nos.3

and 4. The accused No.1 is main accused, he is not the

member of the SC & ST. Therefore Section 3 of the SC &

ST Act, would attract against the accused Nos.1, 2 and 5

(the accused No.2 and 5 not before this court) . Other IPC

offences will attract against accused Nos.3 and 4, such

being the case, the special Court is required to try all the

offences both IPC and Special Act, as one joint trial.

Because the accused Nos.3 and 4 belong to same

community, there cannot be separate trial for them. The

trial court required to frame appropriate charges against

the appropriate accused persons. As per subsection (1)

and (3) of 220 of Cr.P.C, the trial court can frame the

charges, in respect of offences in respect of IPC as well as

Special Act against the said accused persons but the trial

must be a joint trial.

8. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel

for the petitioner cannot be acceptable that there is no

offences made out against accused Nos.3 and 4. On the

other than all the accused persons with common object

entered into the place of business of the complainant, by

trespassing to the same, abused the complainant and his

employees in filthy language and threatened with dire

consequences and insulted the complainant in the

presence of the others in the resort. It is unfortunate to

note that despite of completion of 75 years of

independence of India the downtrodden people not able to

do any business equal to that of any other business people

who were said to be in upper caste. The other caste

people still doing atrocity over the person who is trying to

lead a happy life and to keep up the life and liberty on par

with the other people. The offence committed by the

accused not only affect the right of business as guaranteed

under Article 19 of Constitution of India and also life and

liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of Constitution of India

and using the same caste people against the complainant

is nothing but following the divide and rule policy, which

cannot be allowed.

9. For the above said reasons, the alleged offences

against accused persons clearly attracts both the

provisions of IPC and Section 3(1) of SC & ST (POA)

against accused Nos.1, 2 and 5 and IPC offences attracts

against accused Nos.3 and 4. Therefore, the question of

quashing the criminal proceedings does not arise.

10. Merely the trial court not stated in the order

under Section 227 Cr.P.C, that itself is not a ground to

quash the criminal proceedings. The learned counsel

respondent No.2 also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Kaptain Sing Vs. State of Uttar

Pradesh stated supra where the Hon'ble Supreme Court

stated the criminal proceedings cannot be quashed after

filing of charge sheet and when there are ingredients made

out in the charge sheet. Considering the same, I am of the

view the petition is devoid of merits and liable to be

dismissed.

Accordingly, the writ petition filed by petitioner

Nos.1,3 and 4, is hereby by dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

AKV