Karnataka High Court
Harish S/O H Shanthana Gouda vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 November, 2023
Author: Shivashankar Amarannavar
Bench: Shivashankar Amarannavar
-1-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14010
CRL.P No. 103202 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SHIVASHANKAR AMARANNAVAR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 103202 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. HARISH S/O H. SHANTHANA GOUDA,
AGE. 19 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
2. GIRIDHAR @ GIRISH S/O H. SHANTHANA GOUDA,
AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. SOFT ENGINEER AT BENGALURU,
3. SHIVAKUMAR @ SHIVU S/O YARENNA GOUDA,
AGE. 26 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
4. DODDANAGOUD S/O H. YAREPPA GOUDA,
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. SOFT ENGINEER AT BENGALURU,
5. SHANTHA MURTHY @ SHANTHI GOUDA
S/O H. YAREPPA GOUDA,
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
6. SHAMBUNAGOUDA H. S/O CHANNANA GOUDA,
VIJAYALAKSHMI AGE. 38 YEARS, OCC. STUDENT,
M KANKUPPI
Digitally signed by
VIJAYALAKSHMI M
7. DODDANAGOUDA H. S/O CHANNANA GOUDA,
KANKUPPI
Date: 2023.12.07 AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
11:56:43 +0530
8. VIRUPAKSHI GOUDA @ VIRUPANAGOUDA H.
S/O CHANNANA GOUDA,
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
9. BASAVARAJ @ BASAVANAGOUDA
S/O H. VIRUPAKSHI GOUDA,
AGE. 25 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
10. SHARANAGOUDA S/O MALLIKARJUNA GOUDA,
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
11. MALLIKARJUNA GOUDA @ MALLIGOUD H.
S/O CHANNANA GOUDA,
-2-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14010
CRL.P No. 103202 of 2022
AGE. 65 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
12. SULUVAI MALLIGOUDA S/O KADANAGOUDA,
AGE. 39 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
13. MANJUNATHA GOUDA C.Y. S/O YAREEPA GOUDA C.Y.,
AGE. 29 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
14. MOHANA KUMAR @ MOHANAGOUDA
S/O YARREPPA GOUDA,
AGE. 28 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
15. BASAVARAJA C. @ BASAVARAJ GOUDA
S/O YARENNA GOUDA,
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
16. TONDEHALU YARRAPPA GOUDA
S/O SHARANA GOUDA,
AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
17. RAMANAGOUDA G.S. S/O SHARANA GOUDA,
AGE. 22 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
18. SHANTHANAGOUDA H. S/O CHANNANA GOUDA,
AGE. 55 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
19. LINGAGOUDA S/O SHANKARA GOUDA,
AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
ALL ARE RESIDENTS OF
SHANAVASPURA VILLAGE,
TQ. SIRUGUPPA, DIST. BALLARI-583120.
... PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. J. BASAVARAJ, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
(BY ITS SIRIGERI P.S.)
R/BY ITS STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,
BENCH AT DHARWAD 580011.
2. MALLIKARJUNA B. S/O LATE BHIMALINGAPPA,
AGE. 32 YEARS, OCC. FARMER,
-3-
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14010
CRL.P No. 103202 of 2022
R/O. BYLURU VILLAGE, TQ. KURUGODU,
DIST. BALLARI-583135.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI. MANJUNATH JADAI, ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S 482 OF CR.P.C.,
SEEKING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION, QUASH THE COMPLAINT IN
CR.NO.78/2022 REGISTERED BY SIRIGERI P.S., CHARGE SHEET,
ORDER OF TAKING OF COGNIZANCE AND ISSUANCE OF PROCESS
DATED 30.08.2022 IN SPL.C.NO.782/2022 ON THE FILE OF I
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BALLARI FOR THE
OFFENCE PUNISHABLE U/S 143, 147, 323, 504, 506, R/W 149 OF
THE IPC AND U/S 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) OF SC/ST ACT AGAINST
THE PETITIONER NO.S 1 TO 19/ACCUSED NO.S. 1 TO 19.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Petitioners have sought of quashing of complaint in
crime No.78/2022 of Sirigeri Police Station, charge sheet,
order of taking of cognizance and issuance of process
dated 30.08.2022 in Spl.C.No.782/2022 pending on the
file of the I Additional District and Session Judge, Ballari
registered for offence punishable under Sections 143, 147,
323, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of Indian Penal Code
(hereinafter referred to as 'IPC', for brevity) and
Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the Scheduled Caste
and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14010
1989.(hereinafter referred to as 'the SC & ST Act',
for brevity)
2. Heard learned counsel for petitioners and
learned High Court Government Pleader for respondent
No.1-State. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 is not
present.
3. Respondent No.2 has filed first information and
on that basis, a case came to be registered in crime
No.78/2022 of Sirigeri Police Station against these
petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 143,
147, 148, 323, 324, 307, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC
and Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the SC&ST Act.
After investigation, charge sheet came to be filed against
petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 143,
147, 323, 504, 506 r/w Section 149 of IPC and Sections
3(1)(r), 3(1)(s), 3(2)(v-a) of the SC&ST Act. On the basis
of the charge sheet Special Court took cognizance and
registered the case in Spl.C.No.782/2022 pending on the
file of the I Additional District and Session Judge, Ballari.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14010
The proceedings in Spl.C.No.782/2022 are sought to be
quash in the present petition.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would
contend that the complainant is stranger to petitioners.
There is no mention of the caste of petitioners. There is
no mention of petitioners knowing the caste of the
complainant. Learned counsel for petitioners placed
reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of the
Deepak Mahadevappa Turamari Vs State of
Karnataka and Others1 contends that if the caste of
petitioners are not mentioned in the complaint and
petitioners were knowing that complainant belongs to
schedule caste, the offence punishable under Section 3 of
the SC & ST Act is not attracted. He further contended
that incident is not taken place within public view, since
nobody has viewed the incident. Alleged eye witnesses
names are not stated in the complaint. The names of
witnesses which are mentioned in the complaint are
persons who came there subsequently, who are not
Crl.P.No.100606/2022 and Crl.P.No.100915/2019 connected with Crl.P.No.101243/2019
decided on 16.08.2021
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14010
witnesses the incident. He further contended that the very
further statement of the complainant wherein he has
stated that petitioners have not assaulted him with axe
and rod as stated by him in the complaint, show that he
has made allegations. The alleged incident has taken
place during night hours at about 9.30 P.M and it is not
possible for the complainant to identify the assailants as
they are strangers to him. He further contend that if 19
persons assaulted single person he may sustain severe
injuries. On perusal of the wound certificate two abrasions
are found. Petitioners Nos. 2 and 4 are working in Infosys
Bangalore, petitioner No.1 is student and other petitioners
are agriculturists. With this, he prays to allow the petition.
5. Per contra, learned High Court Government
Pleader would contend that the complainant has
specifically stated the overtacts of each of petitioners in
averments of the complaint and abuse by them touching
his caste. The alleged incident has been witnessed by CW-
7 and 8. The complainant has sustained two injuries as
per the wound certificate. The alleged incident has taken
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14010
place on the road and it is in the view of the public and it
attracts offence punishable under Section 3 of the SC & ST
Act. She further contends that there are no grounds for
quashing of proceedings. With this, she prays to reject
the petition.
6. Respondent No.2 has filed a complaint and on
that basis case came to be registered against petitioners.
In the averments of the complaint there is no mention of
caste of petitioners/accused persons. There is no mention
of caste of petitioners and they are not members of
Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe. Even there is no
mention that petitioners/accused persons knew the
complainant and his caste. This Court in the case of the
Deepak Mahadevappa Turamari and Others Vs State
of Karnataka and Others2 placing reliance on the case of
Gorige Pentaiah Vs State of Andhra Pradesha and
others and Asmathunnisa Vs State of Andhra
Pradesh4 has held that the basic ingredients of Section
Crl.P.No.100915/2019 connected with Crl.P.No.101243/2019
(2008) 12 SCC 531
(2011) 11 SCC 259.
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14010
3(1)(r)(s) of the SC & ST Act, the complainant ought to
have alleged that petitioners were not members of
Schedule Caste or Schedule Tribe and they intentionally
insulted or intimidated with intent to humiliate in a place
within public view. In the entire complaint, nowhere it is
mentioned that petitioners were not members of the
Schedule Caste or a Schedule Tribe and they intentionally
insulted or intimidated the complainant with intend to
humiliate in a place within public view. When the basic
ingredients of the offences are missing in the complaint,
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.
7. The alleged incident has taken place on
01.06.2022 at 9:35 p.m., but complaint came to be filed
on 02.06.2022 at 1:00 p.m, and there is a delay in filing
the complaint. In the averments of complaint, the
complainant has stated that petitioners assaulted him with
axe and club. The complainant in his further statement has
NC: 2023:KHC-D:14010
stated that petitioners have not assaulted him with axe
and rod and have only assaulted with hands. The very said
statement of the complainant shows that he has made
false averments in the complaint and the said aspect itself
shows that FIR was lodged so as to implicate the accused
with an intention to wreak vengeance. The names of the
alleged eye witnesses are not stated in the complaint.
Considering all these aspects, proceedings against the
petitioners is abuse of process of law. Accordingly, I pass
the following;
ORDER
The Criminal Petition is allowed.
The proceedings against the petitioners in Spl.C.
No.782/2022 pending on the file of I Additional District
and Sessions Judge, Ballari are quashed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
DSP & AM
CT:BCK
