Karnataka High Court
Shree Lalitha Tapila vs State Of Karnataka And Anr on 1 October, 2024
Author: K Natarajan
Bench: K Natarajan
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7555
CRL.P No. 200458 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
CRIMINAL PETITION NO.200458 OF 2023
(482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS))
BETWEEN:
MRS. LALITHA @ TAPILA SRILALITA
W/O MR.M.N GURURAJ,
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,
R/O GROUND FLOOR,
L.N REDDY COLONY, VIGNAN NAGAR,
BRINDAVAN LAYOUT,
3RD MAIN 5TH A CROSS, BANGALORE.
ALSO AT NO. 1-11-53/103, SRIRAM NAGAR, COLONY,
RAICHUR CITY, RAICHUR DISTRICT
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. ARUNKUMAR AMARGUNDAPPA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by SHIVALEELA
DATTATRAYA 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
UDAGI BY SADAR BAZAR POLICE STATION,
Location: High RAICHUR SUB DIVISION, RAICHUR
Court Of
Karnataka CHELUVAADI MAHASABHA (REGD)
NO.1-2-79, VV GIRI ROAD, RAICHUR-594101
2. SRI SHARANAPPA T. HAWALDAR
AGE: MAJOR, OCC: PSI, DCRE, KALABURAGI
I/C YADAGIR, DIST. KALAURAGI
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. JAMADAR SHAHABUDDIN, HCGP FOR R1;
SRI C. JAGADISH, (THROUGH VC) ADVOCATE FOR R2)
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF
CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED FIRST INFORMATION
REPORT IN CRIME NO. 36/2023, REGISTERED BY RESPONDENT NO.1
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7555
CRL.P No. 200458 of 2023
SADAR BAZAR POLICE (ANNEXURE-A), PENDING BEFORE THE
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE AT RAICHUR, FILED
AGAINST THE PETITIONER FOR THE ALLEGED OFFENCES
PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTION 5(A) AND 5(B) OF SC,ST AND OBC
(RESERVATION OF APPOINTMENT) READ WITH SECTION 3(1)(Q) OF
THE SC AND ST (PREVENTION OF ATROCITIES) READ WITH SECTION
196, 198 AND 420 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE REGISTERED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 ON THE BASIS OF THE COMPLAINT LODGED BY
THE RESPONDENT NO.2.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER HEARING THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K NATARAJAN)
This petition is filed by the petitioner-accused under
Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR in Crime
No.36/2023 registered by Sadar Bazar Police Station,
Raichur district, for the offences punishable under Sections
5(A), 5(b) of the Karnataka SC/ST & Other B.C.
(Reservation of Appointment Act), 1991; and Section 3(1)
(q) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Amendment Ordinance 2014 and
Sections 198, 196, 420 of IPC.
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7555
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner;
learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent
No.1/State and the learned Special counsel for respondent
No.2.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on the
complaint of respondent No.2 before the police on
13.03.2023 the FIR has been registered. It is alleged that
the petitioner said to be born in Andhra Pradesh and she
said to be belongs to Valmiki community in Andhra
Pradesh and she said to be married a person belongs to
Valmiki community in Raichur district, Karnataka, the
marriage was held on 15.03.2009 and subsequent to the
marriage, she has obtained the caste certificate from the
Tahsildar, Raichur on 30.10.2009 as she belongs to
Valmiki community comes under ST category. Accordingly,
later on 21.06.2011, by using the said certificate, she
secured a job in Bank of India and working. Subsequently,
some organization belongs to SC/ST filed a complaint to
the ADGP Bangalore and in turn the complaint was
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7555
referred to the District Caste Verification Committee (for
short, hereinafter referred to as 'the DCVC;) and the DCVC
took up the verification and finally they came to know she
belongs to OBC in Andhra Pradesh and she do not come
under the Valmiki in ST community in Karnataka and she
has obtained the false certificate the certificate came to be
cancelled. Therefore, on the direction of the DCVC, the
complaint came to be filed. Accordingly, the FIR was
registered, which is under challenge.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has
strenuously argued that she belongs to Valmiki community
in Andhra Pradesh and she was married to the person who
belongs to ST-Valmiki community in Karnataka, she was
bonafide believed she will come under the members of ST.
Therefore, without any criminal intention she has obtained
the certificate and later she has obtained the job and she
is working. Therefore, it is contended the DCVC without
giving an opportunity, without proper conducting the
enquiry, they have filed the complaint and cancelled the
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7555
certificate, which is already challenged before this Court
under writ petition where the Co-ordinate Bench stayed
the order of the DCVC. Therefore, continuing the
proceedings against this petitioner is nothing but abuse of
process of law. Hence, liable to be quashed. In support of
his arguments, he has relied upon the judgments of the
Co-ordinate Benches.
5. Per contra, the learned Special Counsel for the
DCRE objected the petition, contending that while filing
this criminal petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. there is
no grounds made out in the petition regarding obtaining
the interim stay of the DCVC order by filing the writ
petition. Further contented that she belongs to the Valmiki
community in Andhra Pradesh, which comes under the
OBC, but not in ST list and merely marrying a person, who
belongs to ST from Karnataka, she will not be come under
the ST, she will be continued to be her caste of her father
and the status of caste will not change because of
marrying the person belongs to SC/ST. Further contended
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7555
that she secured the job on the false caste certificate and
still working under the reservation of SC/ST persons and in
case the Co-ordinate Bench dismissed the writ petition,
then required to face the trial. Therefore, at this stage, it
is not a fit case for quashing the FIR and prayed for
dismissal of the petition. In support of his case, he has
relied upon the judgments passed by this Court as well as
Hon'ble Supreme Court and other Co-ordinate Benches.
6. The learned High Court Government Pleader
also objected the petition contending that let the
investigation go on until disposal of the petition, the trial
should not be commenced. Hence, prayed for passing the
order.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner also
brought to the notice of this Court that the petitioner now
divorced her husband and she is residing separately.
Therefore, the learned counsel of petitioners has
contended merely a marriage was broken or divorced, her
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7555
status of husband caste will continue. Therefore, prayed
for quashing the same.
8. Having heard the arguments and perused the
records, which reveals that the learned counsel for the
respondent mainly contended even if the stolen articles
were returned back, the offence will not be exonerated
and he has relied upon the judgment of this Court as well
as Co-ordinate Bench and the Hon'ble Supreme Court
judgments.
9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Action Committee on issue of caste certificate to
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in the State
of Maharashtra and Another vs. Union of India and
Another reported in (1994) 5 SCC 244, at para-16 of
the judgment has held as under:
"16. We may add that considerations for specifying a
particular caste or tribe or class for inclusion in the
list of Scheduled Castes/Schedule Tribes or backward
classes in a given State would depend on the nature
and extent of disadvantages and social hardships
suffered by that caste, tribe or class in that State
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7555
which may be totally non est in another State to
which persons belonging thereto may migrate.
Coincidentally it may be that a caste or tribe bearing
the same nomenclature is specified in two States but
the considerations on the basis of which they have
been specified may be totally different. So also the
degree of disadvantages of various elements which
constitute the input for specification may also be
totally different. Therefore, merely because a given
caste is specified in State A as a Scheduled Caste
does not necessarily mean that if there be another
caste bearing the same nomenclature in another
State the person belonging to the former would be
entitled to the fights, privileges and benefits
admissible to a member of the Scheduled Caste of
the latter State "for the purposes of this
Constitution". This is an aspect which has to be kept
in mind and which was very much in the minds of the
Constitution-makers as is evident from the choice of
language of Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution.
That is why in answer to a question by Mr Jaipal
Singh, Dr Ambedkar answered as under:
"He asked me another question and it was this.
Supposing a member of a Scheduled Tribe
living in a tribal area migrates to another part
of the territory of India, which is outside both
the scheduled area and the tribal area, will he
be able to claim from the local Government,
within whose jurisdiction he may be residing
the same privileges which he would be entitled
to when he is residing within the scheduled
area or within the tribal area? It is a difficult
question for me to answer. If that matter is
agitated in quarters where a decision on a
matter like this would lie, we would certainly
be able to give some answer to the question in
the form of some clause in this Constitution.
But so far as the present Constitution stands, a
member of a Scheduled Tribe going outside the
scheduled area or tribal area would certainly
not be entitled to carry with him the privileges
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7555
that he is entitled to when he is residing in a
scheduled area or a tribal area. So far as I can
see, it will be practicably impossible to enforce
the provisions that apply to tribal areas or
scheduled areas, in areas other than those
which are covered by them......."
Relying on this statement the Constitution Bench
ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to
admission to the medical college on the basis that he
belonged to a Scheduled Tribe in the State of his
origin."
10. The learned counsel for the respondent relied
upon the another judgment of this Court in the case of
Srimant S/o Arjun Natikar vs. The State Through
Brahampur Police Station and Another in Criminal
Petition No.200204/2018 dated 10.09.2024, this
Court has dismissed the petition by relying upon its earlier
judgment in the case of K.M.Nagaraj vs. State of
Karnataka and Others in W.P.No.5414/2021 (GM-
RES) dated 14.03.2024 and in the said case this Court
has followed the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench as well as
the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgments reported in the
case of Shoba Lakshmi vs. Divisional Commissioner &
Ors; Kumari Madhuri Patil vs. Additional
- 10 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7555
Commissioner, Tribal Development, reported in AIR
1995 SC 1994; Chairman and Managing Director, FCI
and Ors vs. Jagdish Baralam Bahira and Ors. reported
in AIR 2017 SC 3271, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held in Chairman and Managing Director, FCI
(supra) case held as under:
"A prosecution should be launched against
the candidate or, as the case may be, the
parents or guardians responsible for making
the false claim. The regime postulated in the
judgment of this Court in Madhuri Patil (supra)
took effect from 2 September 1994, which was
the date of the judgment. Eventually in the
State of Maharashtra these directions received
legislative recognition upon the enactment of
the Maharashtra Act XXIII of 2001 which came
into force in the State on 18 October 2001.
However, it is important to notice that even
before the State Legislature stepped in to
confer a statutory form to the directions which
were issued by this Court in Madhuri Patil
(supra) the regime, as it then obtained prior
to the enactment of the law, also envisaged
consequences upon a caste or tribe claim
being found to be false upon a verification by
the Scrutiny Committee. The cancellation of a
certificate would, as a necessary consequence,
involve the invalidation of the appointment to
a post or admission to an educational
institution. Where a candidate had been
appointed to a reserved post on the basis of
the claim that he or she was a member of the
group for which the reservation is intended,
the invalidation of the claim to belong to that
group would, as a necessary consequence,
- 11 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7555
render the appointment void ab initio. The
rationale for this is that a candidate who would
otherwise have to compete for a post in the
general pool of unreserved seats had secured
appointment in a more restricted competition
confined to the reserved category and usurped
a benefit meant for a designated caste, tribe
or class. Once it was found that the candidate
had obtained admission upon a false
representation to belong appointment would
be vitiated by fraud and would be void ab
initio. The falsity of the claim lies in a
representation that the candidate belongs to a
category of persons for whom the reservation
is intended whereas in fact the candidate does
not so belong. The reason for depriving the
candidate of the benefit which she or he has
obtained on the strength of such a claim, is
that a person cannot retain the fruits of a false
claim on the basis of which a scarce public
resource is obtained. The same principle would
apply where a candidate secures admission to
an educational institution on the basis of a
false claim to belong to a reserved category. A
candidate who does so caused detriment to a
genuine candidate who actually belongs to the
reserved category who is deprived of the seat.
For that matter a detriment is caused to the
entire class of persons for whom reservations
are intended, the members of which re
excluded as a result of an admission granted
to an imposter who does not belong to the
class. The withdrawal of benefits, either in
terms of the revocation of employment or the
termination of an admission was hence a
necessary corollary of the invalidation of the
claim on the basis of which the appointment or
admission was obtained. The withdrawal of the
benefit was not based on mens rea or the
intent underlying the assertion of a false
claim. In the case of a criminal prosecution,
intent would be necessary. On the other hand,
- 12 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7555
the withdrawal of civil benefits flowed as a
logical result of the invalidation of a claim to
belong to a group or category for whom the
reservations is intended. This was the position
under the regime which prevailed following the
decision in Madhuri Patil."
Further, in para 53 of the said order, it is
observed as under:-
"Administrative circulars and Government
resolutions are subservient to legislative
mandate and cannot be contrary either to
constitutional norms or statutory principles.
Where a candidate has obtained an
appointment to a post on the solemn basis
that he or she belongs to a designated caste,
tribe or class for whom the post is meant and
it is found upon verification by the Scrutiny
Committee that the claim is false, the services
of such an individual cannot be protected by
taking recourse to administrative circulars or
resolutions. Protection of claims of a usurper is
an act of deviance to the constitutional
scheme as well as to statutory mandate. No
government resolution or circular can override
constitutional or statutory norms. The principle
that government is bound by its own circulars
is well-settled but it cannot apply in a situation
such as present. Protecting the services of a
candidate who is found not to belong to the
community or tribe for whom the reservation
is intended substantially encroaches upon
legal rights of genuine members of the
reserved communities whose just entitlements
are negated by the grant of a seat to an
ineligible person. In such a situation where the
rights of genuine members of reserved groups
or communities are liable to be affected
detrimentally, government circulars or
resolutions cannot operate to their detriment."
(underling supplied)
- 13 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7555
Lastly, Rule 7-A of The Karnataka Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
(Reservations16 Appointment, Etc.,) Rules, 1992
specifically provides for prosecution of the offenders
who obtained false caste certificate. Said Rule reads
as under:
7-A. Prosecution for obtaining false
caste certificate- (1) The Caste Verification
Committee or the Caste and Income
Verification Committee, as the case may be
and the Divisional Commissioner, shall send a
copy of the order rejecting claim of the
applicant for grant of Validity Certificate or, as
the case may be, a Copy of the order in appeal
rejecting such claim, to the Directorate of Civil
Rights Enforcement.
(2) The Directorate of Civil Rights
Enforcement shall take steps to prosecute
such claimant who has obtained a false Caste
Certificate.
In view of the above legal and factual position,
the prosecution of the petitioner for the alleged
offences under Section 196,198,420 of Indian Penal
Code and Section 3 (1)(ix) of The Scheduled Castes
and the Scheduled Tribes(Prevention of Atrocities)
Act, cannot be faulted with as the allegations made
in the complaint prima facie make out the
ingredients of the above offences alleged against the
petitioner justifiable ground to quash the impugned
proceedings. Consequently, the petition is
dismissed."
- 14 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7555
11. By relying upon the Kumari Madhuri Patil's
case has held the Section 7-A of the Karnataka Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes
(Reservation of Appointment, etc.) Rules, 1992, the
prosecution shall be launched for the offenders, who
obtained the false certificate, based upon the judgment,
this Court dismissed the petition.
12. However, this Court in a similar case wherein
Savithri @ Savithramma vs. State of Karnataka and
Another in Criminal Petition No.8857/2018 dated
19.04.2022, by relying upon the various judgments and
finally it has held wherein the said petitioner-Savithri @
Savithramma was aged for 64 years, she has left the job
long back, she said to be dismissed from service,
therefore, this Court has held at the time of obtaining the
certificate, there is no criminal intention at initial stage
and for seeking reservation, bonafide believed she will get
the caste of her husband in view of marrying the person
who belongs to the SC/ST community.
- 15 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7555
13. But herein this case where the petitioner is
secured job only in the year 2011, and even if it is stated
she has bonafide believed she belonged to her husband
caste, forget about the caste belongs to her father. But, it
is now stated she has already divorced her husband.
Whether after the divorce of her husband, whether she
continued to be members of ST or wife of the husband and
her status of caste is continue as ST-Valmiki in Karnataka.
In this regard, I am of view, once the very obtaining the
caste certificate in Karnataka, even though her husband is
belongs to a member of the SC/ST, she cannot be
considered as a member of the SC/ST by marrying the
person belongs to SC/ST. Even if it is believed she was not
ST in Andhra Pradesh, whereas the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has held in para-16 in the case of Action Committee
(supra) where even the same caste in one area and the
same will not be continued in migrating to the another
area. Therefore, she cannot be considered as ST in
Karnataka, even though she belongs to ST in Andhra
- 16 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7555
Pradesh. That apart, she has already divorced her
husband.
14. That apart the learned counsel relied upon the
judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench wherein the Co-
ordinate Bench quashed the FIR. Herein the writ petition
was filed and the DCVC order has been challenged
regarding validity of the order of the DCVC. Herein this
case, the DCVC already made an enquiry and given finding
that she not belongs to ST. Therefore, her caste certificate
has been cancelled. Subsequently, the criminal
prosecution has been launched. Therefore, as contended
by the learned counsel for the petitioner that until disposal
of the writ petition, the criminal prosecution shall not be
continued and the FIR should be quashed. Whereas the
respondent counsel argued, if the writ petition filed by the
petitioner dismissed, then once again the DCVC is required
to file one more complaint for the purpose of investigation.
15. In this regard, I am the view once the FIR is
quashed, another FIR cannot be registered on the same
- 17 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7555
cause of action subsequently on the development in the
case. Therefore, though the writ petition is still pending
before the Co-ordinate Bench and until disposal of the
petition by Co-ordinate Bench, the Trial Court shall not
proceed with the trial and it can wait for the disposal of
the result of the order of the writ petition challenging the
cancellation of certificate by DCVC.
16. Therefore, I am of the view that the FIR cannot
be quashed and the police can keep the FIR pending until
disposal of the writ petition by the Co-ordinate Bench and
thereafter the petitioner is liberty to approach in case the
DCVC order has been quashed, then petitioner can
approach this Court for quashing the FIR until the FIR
cannot be quashed.
17. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER
(i) The petition is disposed off with liberty to
approach this Court in case the petitioner
- 18 -
NC: 2024:KHC-K:7555
got any favorable order in the writ petition
by quashing the DCVC order, if any.
In view of disposal of main petition, pending IAs, if
any, do not survive for consideration and same shall
disposed of.
Sd/-
(K NATARAJAN)
JUDGE
SDU
CT:SI
