Nagaraj Shetty S/O Late B ... vs The State Of Karnataka
2023 Latest Caselaw 7708 Kant

                                                             -1-
                                                                   NC: 2023:KHC-D:13333
                                                                    CRL.A No. 100314 of 2023




                                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                                         DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023

                                                           BEFORE

                                  THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR

                                            CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 100314 OF 2023

                                 BETWEEN:

                                 1.   NAGARAJ SHETTY S/O LATE B. RAMACHANDRA SHETTY,
                                      AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS,
                                      INCHARGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER OF
                                      KOPPALA INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,
                                      RESIDING OF HAGARIBOMMANAHALLI,
                                      OPP. GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL,
                                      VIJAYANAGARA DISTRICT-583212.

                                 2.   PROF. DR. SHANKARA M. MALAPURE S/O. MALLARI,
                                      AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS,
                                      RESIDING AT G-1, I MAIN,
                                      SADASHIVA NAGAR, BELAGAVI-590019,
                                      FORMER DIRECTOR OF KOPPALA
                                      INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES,
                                      KOPPALA-583104.
                                                                                ... APPELLANTS
                                 (BY SRI. C.R BHASKAR, ADVOCATE)

              Digitally signed
              by
                                 AND:
VIJAYALAKSHMI VIJAYALAKSHMI
M KANKUPPI    M KANKUPPI
              Date: 2023.11.20
              11:48:59 +0530

                                 1.   THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
                                      BY KOPPALA RURAL POLICE,
                                      R/BY THE STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
                                      HIGH COURTOF KARNATAKA,
                                      DHARWAD-580001.

                                 2.   DEVENDRAPPA D. DODDAMANI S/O DODDAMANI,
                                      AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS,
                                      R/O SA. KUVEMPUNAGARA,
                                      FIVE HUNDRED FLAT,
                                      KOPPAL DISTRICT-583212.
                                                                           ... RESPONDENTS
                                 (BY SRI. P.N. HATTI, HCGP FOR R1;
                                  SRI. NELENDRA D. GUNDE, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
                                    -2-
                                          NC: 2023:KHC-D:13333
                                           CRL.A No. 100314 of 2023




      THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL IS FILED U/SEC.14A(1) OF SC/ST ACT
SEEKING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN SPL. CC(AC)
NO.17/2018 AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2022 PASSED
ON APPLICATION FILED BY THE ACCUSED 1 TO 2 PETITIONERS NO.1
AND 2 UNDER SEC. 227 OF CR.P.C. IN SPL. CC(AC) NO.17/2018, ON
THE FILE OF THE PRINCIPAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
KOPPAL, FOR DISCHARGE ACCUSED NO.1 AND 2 (PETITIONER 1 TO
2 ) FOR THE SAID OFFENCES P/U/SEC. 323, 341, 504, 506, R/W 34
OF IPC AND SEC. 3(1)(r) (s) 3(2) (v-a) OF THE SCHEDULED CASTE
(POA) ACT 1989 AND ALLOW THE SAME, AND GRANT SUCH OTHER
RELIEF/S.

     THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

                              JUDGMENT

The appellants have questioned the order dated

24.03.2022 passed in Spl. CC(AC) No.17/2018 by the

learned Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal,

whereunder the discharge application filed by the

appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 under Section 227 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Cr.P.C.', for short) in respect of Crime No.228/2017 for

offences under Section 323, 341, 504 and 506 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to

as 'the IPC', for short) and Section 3(1)(r) & (s) and 3(2)(va)

of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13333 CRL.A No. 100314 of 2023

(Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to

as 'SC & ST Act', for short) came to be rejected.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

appellants, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the

learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent

No.1-State.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on

13.10.2017 at about 4:15 pm at KIMS, Koppal, when the

complainant/respondent No.2 came to KIMS Hospital,

Koppal, for asking information about the application filed by

him under The Right to Information Act, at that time, the

appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 suddenly enraged over the

complainant and restrained the complainant from

proceeding further where he has right to proceed and

abused the complainant in filthy language and assaulted him

with hands and also abused him taking his caste and also

gave threat to his life with dire consequences. On the basis

of the complaint filed by respondent No.2, a case came to

be registered against these appellants and another in Crime

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13333 CRL.A No. 100314 of 2023

No.228/2017 by Koppal Rural Police for the aforesaid

offences. After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed

against accused No.1 for the offences under Sections 341,

504, 323, 506 read with Section 34 of IPC and Sections

3(1)(r)(s) and 3(2)(va) of SC & ST Act and in respect of

accused No.2 only with respect of offences under Sections

341, 504, 323 and 506 read with Section 34 of IPC. On the

basis of the said charge sheet, a case came to be registered

against these appellants/accused Nos.1 and 2 in Spl.CC

(AC) No.17/2018. The appellants filed an application under

Section 227 of Cr.P.C. seeking their discharge. The learned

Public Prosecutor filed objections to the said application.

After hearing both sides, the learned Sessions/Special Judge

has passed the impugned order rejecting the discharge

application. The said order has been challenged in this

appeal.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants

would contend that, the alleged incident has taken place in

the office of accused No.2 and it is not in the view of the

public and therefore, the offence under Section 3(1)(r) & (s)

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13333 CRL.A No. 100314 of 2023

are not attracted. He further contended that, the

complainant in the complaint has stated about the prior

enmity with the accused and therefore respondent No.2 has

filed a false complaint against the appellants/accused Nos.1

and 2. Even the wound certificate does not reveal any

injury on the complainant and that the complainant himself

has gone to the hospital and the police have not

accompanied the complainant while he had gone to the

hospital. He places reliance on the decision of this Court in

the case of Sri. Rithesh Pais and State of Karnataka and

another in Criminal Petition No.3597/2022 decided on

10.06.2022. He further contended that appellant No.2

belongs to Scheduled Caste and therefore, the offence

under Section 3(1)(r) and (s) of SC & ST Act would not

attract against him. He would contend that, without

considering the material on record, the learned

Sessions/Special Judge has passed the impugned order.

With this he prayed to allow the appeal and set aside the

impugned order and discharge the appellants.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13333 CRL.A No. 100314 of 2023

5. Per contra, learned High Court Government

Pleader appearing for respondent No.1 and the learned

counsel appearing for respondent No.2, both, submit that

the alleged incident has taken place in the office of the

appellants and it is amenable to the public and is in view of

the public. Charge sheet has been filed for the offences

under the SC & ST Act only against accused No.1. There is

a counter complaint registered against respondent No.2 by

the first appellant and on that basis, a case came to be

registered in Crime No.229/2017 for offences under

Sections 504, 186, 353, 332, 506, 384 and 511 of IPC and

the same itself shows that there is a case and counter case

between respondent No.2 and the appellants. They contend

that there are eyewitnesses to the incident. A perusal of the

entire charge sheet material show that there are grounds to

proceed against the appellants and to frame charge for the

offences alleged against them. Therefore, the learned

Sessions/Special Judge has rightly rejected their discharge

application. With this they prayed to dismiss the appeal.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13333 CRL.A No. 100314 of 2023

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the

appellants, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and the

learned HCGP, this Court has gone through the charge sheet

material.

7. In Sri. Rithesh Pais's case (supra) relied upon by

the learned counsel for the appellants, the incident therein

has taken place in the newly constructed building of the

complainant and that too in the basement of the building.

In the case at hand, the incident has taken place in the

office of the appellants. Appellant No.1 is a Public

Information Officer and is working as In-charge Chief

Administrative Officer, KIMS, Koppal and accused No.2 is

the Director in KIMS, Koppal. As per the averments of the

complaint, the alleged incident has taken place in the office

of the appellants. As per the spot mahazar, the incident has

taken place in the Office of the Director, KIMS, Koppal. The

spot of the incident is a place amenable to the public and in

view of the public. Moreso, the said alleged incident has

been witnessed by CWs.4 to 7, who have visited the KIMS

Hospital with regard to the issue on drinking water. The

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13333 CRL.A No. 100314 of 2023

alleged incident has taken place in a public place. The same

has also been considered by the learned Sessions/Special

Judge while passing the impugned order.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants contended

that appellant No.2 belongs to SC and therefore offence

under Section 3 of SC & ST Act are not attracted against

him. On perusal of the charge sheet, appellant

No.2/accused No.2 is not charged with the offence under

Section 3 of SC & ST Act.

9. On perusal of the statement of the witnesses,

namely CWs.4 to 7 and the averments in the compliant, the

alleged offences under Sections 341, 504, 323, 506 read

with Section 34 of IPC are attracted against the appellants

and there are material to frame charge against them.

10. Considering all these aspects, the learned

Sessions/Special Judge has rightly passed the impugned

order which does not call for interference by this Court.

NC: 2023:KHC-D:13333 CRL.A No. 100314 of 2023

11. In the result, the following:

ORDER

The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

kmv ct:bck