Karnataka High Court
Santosh Mohan Kudalkar vs The State Of Karnataka on 30 June, 2023
Bench: Anil B Katti
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6498
CRL.A No. 100120 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANIL B KATTI
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100120 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SANTOSH MOHAN KUDALKAR,
AGE. 47 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE,
R/O. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
KARWAR, UTTAR KANNADA.
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. S. B. DODDAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
BY KARWAR TOWN POLICE STATION
REP. BY SPP, HIGH COURT BUILDING,
DHARWAD.
Digitally
signed by J 2. SABHEENA MOHAMMAD HANIF MALDAR,
MAMATHA
J AGE.35 YEARS, OCC. EMPLOYEE,
MAMATHA Date:
2023.07.06 R/O. OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE,
11:08:05 -
0700 KARWAR, UTTAR KANNADA.
NOW AT: C/O RIZWON A BYALI
BHANDWAD BASE OPPOSITE SHAH BAZAR,
HUBBALLI
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRAVEEN UPPAR, HCGP FOR R1
SRI. K.S. PATIL, ADV. FOR R2)
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6498
CRL.A No. 100120 of 2023
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.14A(2) OF CR.P.C.
SEEKING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 21.02.2023 PASSED BY
THE II ADDL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE UTTARA KANNADA
KARWAR IN CRI MISC NO. 25/2023 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL BY
DISMISSING APPLICATION U/SEC. 438 OF CR.P.C. IN THE KARWAR
TOWN P.S CRIME NO. 06/2023 FOR THE OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 504,
506 OF IPC AND 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) OF SC/ST ACT 1989.
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Appellant/respondent No.2 feeling aggrieved by the
order passed by II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Uttara
Kannada, Karwar, in Crl.Misc.25/2023 dated 21.02.2023
preferred this appeal.
2. Learned High Court Government Pleader for
respondent No.1 with memo has filed 'B' report submitted by
the Investigating Officer. Learned counsel representing
Shri K.S.Patil, for respondent No.2 present.
3. Heard the arguments of both sides.
4. On the strength of complaint filed by respondent
No.2-Santosh Mohan Kudalkar criminal law was set into
motion by registering a case in Karwar Town police station in
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6498
CRL.A No. 100120 of 2023
Cr.No.6/2023 for the offences punishable under Sections 504
and 506 of IPC and Sections 3 (1)(r) and 3 (1)(s) of
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of
Atrocities) Act, 2015. Thereafter, present respondent No.2
approached the trial Court for seeking anticipatory bail under
Section 438 of Cr.P.C. registered in Crl.Misc.25/2023 on the
file of II Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Uttara Kannada,
Karwar. The trial Court after having heard both sides granted
anticipatory bail to respondent No.2/accused named in the
FIR. Appellant/complainant is challenging the grant of
anticipatory bail to respondent No.2 on the ground that
observation of trial Court that the incident took place in the
chamber of appellant/complainant and it is not a public place.
Therefore, there being no prima facie case that complainant
was humiliated in public view granted anticipatory bail cannot
be legally sustained.
5. The trial Court recorded finding that in the present
case, in view of the facts involved as per the complaint
allegation does not make out a prima facie case and hence,
bar contemplated under Section 18 of the Act is not
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6498
CRL.A No. 100120 of 2023
applicable. Having so observed, granted anticipatory bail to
respondent No.2/accused.
6. Looking to the complaint allegations, it would go
to show that on 11.01.2023 at about 11 a.m. while
complainant was discharging his official duty, accused
questioned about putting question mark on 10.01.2023
against her name in the attendance register. Complainant is
said to have replied that no any application for leave was
received and document was not produced, therefore put
question mark due to absence of accused on 10.01.2023.
However, accused started abusing complainant in filthy
language by taking the caste of complainant with an intention
to humiliate him in public view.
7. Indisputably, complainant is working as
Superintendent in the office of Assistant Commissioner, Excise
Department, Karwar and the accused is working as peon in
the same office. The alleged incident took place in the
chamber of complainant when accused questioned about
putting question mark in the attendance register on
10.01.2023. It appears that accused did not attend to her
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6498
CRL.A No. 100120 of 2023
duties on 10.01.2023 without submitting any leave application
or produced document for seeking leave on the said day. The
allegation of accused abusing complainant in filthy language
with an intention to humiliate the complainant in public view
took place in the chamber of complainant. It is true that the
office in which complainant is working is public office. The
complaint allegations do not speak anything that there were
any public being present either in the Excise Office or in the
chamber of complainant when the alleged incident took place.
Therefore, allegation of accused abusing complainant is on
account of frustration of accused questioned complainant
putting question mark in attendance register due to absence
on 10.01.2023. On the basis of above referred material, no
any intention of accused can be inferred that she was
intended to humiliate the complainant in public view. The trial
Court has rightly inferred from the complaint allegations with
reference to the incident in question and on being satisfied
that there is no prima facie case, the bar contemplated under
Section 18 of the Act does not come in the way. In view of
the facts and circumstances of the case, extended the benefit
of grant of anticipatory bail in terms of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6498
CRL.A No. 100120 of 2023
8. The learned High Court Government Pleader along
with memo has produced the copy of 'B' report filed in this
case. On perusal of the same, it would go to show that
complainant has not filed any complaint on the date of
incident i.e., on 11.01.2023. The 'B' report would go to show
that on 12.01.2023 accused has filed complaint against the
present complainant in Mahila Police Station, Karwar, for the
offences under Sections 354 (A) (v), 509, 506 of IPC which
came to be registered in Cr.No.2/2023. It is thereafter
complainant has filed the present complaint on 13.01.2023.
The said material prima facie appears that complainant after
accused filed complaint against him in Mahila police station in
Cr.No.2/2023 as an after thought filed the present complaint.
The Investigation Officer has filed 'B' report on the complaint
filed by the complainant. Therefore, in view of the above
referred facts, I find no any valid reason to interfere with the
order passed by the trial Court in exercise of judicial
discretion in granting anticipatory bail filed under Section 438
of Cr.P.C. by order dated 21.02.2023. Consequently, proceed
to pass the following:
NC: 2023:KHC-D:6498
CRL.A No. 100120 of 2023
ORDER
Appeal filed by appellant/complainant is hereby
dismissed.
The order passed by II Addl. District and Sessions
Judge, Uttara Kannada, Karwar, in Cr.No.25/2023 dated
21.02.2023 is confirmed.
(Sd/-)
JUDGE
JM
